A resolution recognizing and honoring Woodstock, Vermont, native Hiram Powers for his extraordinary and enduring contributions to American sculpture.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the termination of my comments, the distinguished Senator from Montana be recognized.

Mr. President, it is somewhat out of order when I make comments on trade in that the distinguished majority leader says he wants to do energy, he wants to do judges, he wants to do the supplemental, and he wants to do trade. I talked to him earlier this morning, and I said: I would be glad to fill in at any time they have a lapse. He said: Well, it wouldn't be until tomorrow. Then later in the exchange--there has been an intramural all morning long on procedures-- he said: Perhaps on Saturday.

So I thought once the Pastore rule had been complied with and rule 19(1)(b), the three hours had been completed--the distinguished former leader, the Senator from West Virginia, and I are the only two that remember the Pastore rule. Now that I have the floor, I have time to comment in a deliberate fashion. And while my distinguished former chairman and now ranking member of the Finance Committee is on the floor, since I am talking about trade, I want to express a frustration and make this observation.

The main problem we have is how to pay our bills. The President has just put out a budget deficit projection of just a $455 billion deficit. That is on page 1 of his report. But on page 57 of the report, you will see the deficit will really reach $698 billion this year. As of this minute, the public debt to the penny is $503 billion. But second to that particular problem is the matter before us of jobs, economic strength, and manufacturing capacity.

I will never forget Akio Morita, former chairman of the board of Sony. Morita was visiting Chicago, and lecturing about Third World countries. And he admonished that a Third World country had to develop a strong manufacturing capacity in order to become a nation state. And later on, he diverted and pointed and said to me about the United States: That world power that loses its manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power.

At the end of World War II, we had 40 percent of the workforce of America engaged in production manufacturing. Now we are down to 11.2 percent, and soon it will be 10 percent. So as a result of the scheme, I should call it, of the Finance Committee, we will have 10 percent of Americans working, and the other 90 percent eating or talking about it. And I hear these big voices around saying: World power, we are the only world. We are not a world power. No, no. We are in a very weakened position.

Right to the point, when I came to the Senate I got on the Commerce Committee. I had practiced customs law. I thought I was getting into trade because the Commerce Committee used to be the Committee of Foreign Commerce. Under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress of the United States shall regulate foreign commerce--not the President, not fast track, not some wavering trade minister running around Doha saying he is

going to do away with dumping laws--but the Congress.

And I found out that my distinguished chairman, Senator Magnuson at the time, was interested in exports, since he represented Boeing. Foreign commerce had reverted over to the Finance Committee. They had the reciprocal trade agreement. They had the Special Trade Representative. And indirectly, I became a sort of a study of the Finance Committee. I had a fellow named Claude Wilde from Texas come up to me, when I was just a freshman Senator. I was taken to the third floor of the old Statler Hilton. And he said: Yes, we are going to get rid of that fellow Yarborough. We are going to get that fellow Bentsen up here because he is better on oil.

I said: On oil.

He said: Oh, yes, that Finance Committee, we oil boys run it. We look out for oil.

So the farmers are smarter than the oil boys. They have moved in with the Senator from Montana and the Senator from North Dakota and all the rest of them.

I notice my distinguished ranking member. He put out a complaint to the WTO on agriculture. I have lost 61,000 textile jobs since he proposed NAFTA. He didn't ask the WTO about the special provisions for textiles. But he wants to petition. He immediately becomes alert. I have had to fight agriculture, I have had to fight the oil boys, I have had to fight that Finance Committee to sober up this Congress and let us go to work on producing jobs.

The policy at this minute is to export jobs, eliminate jobs, get rid of all jobs--not just textile, not just hard manufacture, not just service jobs, not just high-tech jobs, but all jobs, except politicians and the press. If we started importing politicians and press, I believe we would finally stop, look, and listen, and we would begin to understand the problem.

We have to struggle in order to debate trade as a result. It is easy to fix the Finance Committee--and they are fixed. They get their little amendments in there, and everything else like that. I am ready to vote for the Chile trade agreement. I have been saying that for 5 years, except they put on immigration.

You didn't, but you didn't knock it off. They had a vote 3 years ago on the H-1B visas, with that Silicon Valley crowd. They wanted to get all the Indians and Chinese cheaper, and bring them in to take American jobs. The vote was 99 to 1. I was the one against that immigration. I am against this immigration, and if you didn't have fast track, Mr. President, I could put up a little amendment, like any Senator, and we would have the normal process, and we would have an up- or-down vote, and I probably could pass it. I notice, on the other side of the aisle, some Republican colleagues are concerned about the immigration provision. Chile is better than us. Chile has a free market economy; they have labor laws; they have environmental laws; they have a respected judiciary; they have a balanced budget.

Even when they brought up NAFTA, I said, why not Australia? They are the best friend we have; they immediately supported us in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Vietnam, and in Korea--the best friend we have and we don't have a free trade agreement with them.

Now they want us to have a free trade agreement with a corporate state, Singapore. I said long ago I could compete with any company in Japan, but I could not compete with the country of Japan. So here I am being asked to give the country, which is really a corporate State, free trade status. The government of Singapore owns the port; shipping and logistics; property; the airlines, telecom, media, banking, and financing services industries; powers, utilities, technology, engineering, and the rail.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in the Record.

Mr. President, that is a corporate state. There isn't any question that what we have here is a loading dock, a veritable loading dock from Indonesia. Let me read this. Here is a headline:

Officials tout manufacturing services benefits from U.S.-

Singapore FTA.

U.S. Ambassador to Singapore Frank Lavin this week said the

greatest economic benefits to U.S. companies from the

recently-concluded U.S.-Singapore free trade agreement would

come in the areas of financial services, intellectual

property and manufacturing in the electronics sector.

Lavin said that in the long run, the ``most significant

aspect of this FTA'' could be provisions allowing products

assembled in the two Indonesian out-islands to be counted as

Singaporean in origin for the purposes of the FTA. That would

allow U.S. electronics manufacturers to take advantage of low

wage rates on those islands to assemble components from

Singapore into electronic products that can enter the U.S.

duty free, Lavin said.

Mr. President, where are we? Here we are trying to create jobs, and our good friend, Don Evans, the Secretary of Commerce, is running all over, jobs and growth, jobs and growth, jobs and growth, and we will give you a tax cut, jobs and growth as if that's going to help.

My distinguished friend on the House side--the smartest fellow perhaps in the Congress is John Spratt from South Carolina, the ranking member of the Budget Committee. He voted for NAFTA. I said, John, for Heaven's sake how could you? And he said he had a promise that we can get 500 additional Customs agents. He said we need them badly, and he was right. We needed them badly.

We never got the 500 Customs agents. They keep cutting that budget particularly. They need help. In Charleston, we have to lend the local sheriff's sniffing dog to the Customs agents. My office is in the Customs building. I keep up with them and I know what is going on down there.

Mauritius, the little island off the coast of Africa, was inundating us with imported textiles, but they didn't have a textile plant. It was all made in China, and coming through Africa to South Carolina. These transshipments, Customs people will tell you, are to the tune of $5 billion. When you go to them and ask them, wait a minute, can't you enforce the law, they say: Senator, you want me to enforce the law now on terrorism or textiles? I said: Heavens, no, on terrorism. Do you want me to enforce the law on drugs or textiles? Oh, no, I want you to enforce the law on drugs.

So we have lost 61,000 textile jobs, and who is leading the way? The Department of State is leading the way in Singapore. I hate to say that about Singapore because I have visited there and I have the greatest respect for anybody in the Far East, specifically the former Prime Minister, Le Quan Yu.

As a young Senator, in the early 1970s, I went there and Senator Mansfield, the majority leader, said: Fritz, you have to call on him. He is the wise man of the East. I had the most interesting conversation just the year before last. I called on him again, with the distinguished chairman of the then Intelligence Committee, Senator Shelby, because I wanted the Prime Minister to relate a particular observation he had made to me back then with respect to the defenses and the concerns we had in the Far East, which is another subject for debate. I was prepared to vote for Singapore. But we got fast track.

With fast track you cannot say anything; you cannot do anything. You have to disrupt the Senate, in the middle of the energy debate, to be heard. We have fast track on jobs in America. We fast track jobs offshore--that is what it is. If we did not have fast track, I could put up a little amendment to strike the provision in the Singapore agreement that they couldn't have transshipments from the Malaysian Islands. This will just open

the door for everything in the Malaysian Islands to come through Singapore. Listen to what the State Department ambassador said:

With fast track, you have to disrupt the orderliness of business around here.

I apologize to both leaders who have had a very difficult time getting business back on track today, but, Mr. President, I can tell you now, I do not apologize to anybody about the importance of this particular subject. It is not discussed, it is not debated, and it is not considered. It is fixed.

I know something about trial lawyers, and I have seen some fixed juries that I have had to go up against. If there has ever been a fixed jury, it is this U.S. Congress. And I do not speak in a partisan fashion. I remember NAFTA. We had that beat until President Clinton went out and picked up 23 votes. He gave a golf round here for this particular Congressman, a golf round there. Jake Pickle, the Congressman from Texas, my good friend, got a cultural center. Another Congressman down in Texas got two C-17s. Oh, yes, the White House has the power. I do not speak loosely or lightly. I speak authoritatively. It has been reported in the press. They fixed the vote.

This vote was already fixed, unbeknownst to the members of the Finance Committee, so that when the treaties got here, they found this hidden provision on immigration and we cannot vote on it.

Finally, they put in a provision with respect to the transshipments to Singapore, and we cannot amend it. So the Senator from South Carolina under fast track is forbidden from voting his will with respect to these particular trade agreements.

I am really worried. I just mentioned to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia about production in this country. I go right back to Morita. We were talking about manufacturing. That has been the strength of Japan. It is now the unquestioned strength of China. We think we are strong. We passed a resolution in the United Nations at the end of the eighties for the General Assembly to have hearings on human rights in China. China went around us, to the leadership in Africa, in the Philippines, in Malaysia, in Australia, and in New Zealand. They picked up the votes, and we never had a hearing on human rights, even though we had it adopted in that particular committee.

One can say under domestic politics, it's the economy, stupid; one can say under foreign policy, it's the economy, stupid, because it is the economic strength of our Nation that is in question here.

I just finished reading a book, ``An Army at Dawn'' by Rick Atkinson. He reminded me of the strength we had in World War II and how we really won that war. I have been on several panels, having been a 3-year veteran starting out in Africa and ending up on V-E Day in Austria. As much as anyone, Rosie the Riveter won that war. I hope in this big ceremony they have for World War II that they will have a statue for Rosie the Riveter because I can tell you right now, it was the American production that won that war. As has been said, we did not defeat the Germans in North Africa, we overwhelmed them because we had that kind of production.

As I said earlier, at the end of World War II, we had 40 percent of our workforce in manufacturing, in production. As of yesterday afternoon, my check showed it was 11.2 percent, and we are going to get new figures on Friday, and probably it will be down some more. For the last 3 years the manufacturing strength and economy of the United States has diminished.

What happens is, we have 10 percent of the people producing and we have 90 percent of the people eating and talking about it. That is not a country. Let's not run around here about energy, and run around here about judges, and run around here about supplemental bills, and whatever else. Let's sober up and start rebuilding this country, rebuilding jobs, and quit exporting them. Let's put a tourniquet on this outflow hemorrhage of jobs to any and everywhere but the United States.

We have a 6.5 percent unemployment rate. The real unemployment rate is not just the 6.5 percent.

Mr. President, there are those who have not applied, so it is a real unemployment rate of some 10 percent.

My colleagues can see why I am worried when we see ``The Jobless and Hopeless May Quit the Labor Force.'' That is how we get to 10 percent. This is another Times article dated April 26.

Mr. President, if you think I am worried, let's go to Mort Zuckerman, the editor in chief of U.S. News and World Report. I quote:

The statistics are enough to make an incumbent assume the

fetal position: 2.7 million fewer private-sector jobs than

two years ago; the longest decline (32 months) in industrial

employment since the Great Depression: the longest continuous

decline in jobs in more than 50 years. Making matters worse,

the stock market has been off by double digits for three

years in a row. That's the first time that happened since the

1930s. The markets' plunge wiped out over $5 trillion in

value, including the retirement savings of millions of

Americans.

As if all that were not enough, the $5.6 trillion Federal

surplus we saw during the 1990s has been turned upside down

into an estimated $4 trillion deficit. Business activity is

as weak as it has ever been outside of a recession, and we do

not know whether this signals the onset of another recession,

the dreaded double dip.

That is Mort Zuckerman.

Some might say, Hollings, you are all wound up about Texas. I am not wound up about Texas. I am wound up about the country. We are in the worst shape I have ever seen, and they are running around here with tax cuts for jobs and growth. We have lost 2 million jobs since we passed the tax cut. We have lost 2.7 million since President Bush has taken office, according to Mr. Zuckerman.

The Wall Street Journal on July 21: ``Laid Off Factory Workers Find Jobs Are Drying Up For Good.''

I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

I picked up my August 4 issue of Time magazine: ``Where The Good Jobs Are Going. Forget Sweatshops. U.S. companies are now shifting high-wage work overseas, especially to India.''

I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

What happens is that when we used to argue for manufacturing jobs, they said, oh, don't worry, the service economy will produce jobs. Then when the service economy was leaving, they said high tech, will be the motor of growth. Then there was Y2K, that was to be the next motor of growth.

The high-tech jobs are gone. The service jobs are gone. As they told England at the end of World War II, do not worry, instead of a nation of bronze, you are going to be a nation of brains; instead of providing products, you are going to provide services; instead of creating wealth, you are going to handle it and be a financial center.

Of course, England has gone to economic hell in a hand basket. Downtown London is an amusement park. Let's not go that way. We have to produce.

As they crown the queens and bring out the kings and everything else of that kind, we are in a position where we do not make anything anymore. For example, footwear, 83.6 percent of our shoes are imported; 70 percent of our clothing is imported.

Ceramic household articles, 87 percent is gone; cooking and kitchen- ware, gone. And I can read on and on, right on down the line.

I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.

We do not make anything anymore. We are just jabbering to each other. We are not producing.

The Secretary of Commerce is burdened with the duty--and the current occupant of the chair would be interested in this--of listing some 500 critical articles to our national security for defense purposes. We have a $5 billion deficit in the balance of trade. We had to wait 5 months before we went into Desert Storm to get mainframes from the Japanese. Now we have to go to other countries before we can go to war. We do not make those things anymore. We have an advanced technology of a $2 billion a month deficit in the balance of trade, over $24 billion a year, in advanced technology.

The Japanese have given up. They moved their advanced technology and research to Shanghai. The most modern automotive research is in downtown Shanghai. General Motors put it there. We can go right on down the list. The Chinese are saying before anyone can come with factories, they have to bring their research.

The technology community of the United States is concerned about our technological capability. We do not have as many Americans engineers as there are in China. We maintain our security by a superiority of technology, and we are draining the tub of technology just as fast as we can. Yet in this Chamber, we want to talk about an Energy bill, want to talk about a judge--don't we want to talk about trade? Put fast track on the Energy bill. Why not? Unless, by gosh, we get serious and start talking about jobs in America, the economic strength, the industrial backbone of this Nation.

Tax cuts loses jobs. Free trade loses jobs. We have a race to the bottom to Mexico. In South Carolina we have lost 61,000 jobs-- incidentally, we were supposed to get 200,000 jobs in America by signing NAFTA. That is what NAFTA was going to create for us. Nationally, we have lost 450,000 jobs to Mexico, but not for long because those same Mexican jobs formerly in America are now going to China.

It is different than what Henry Ford said. Henry Ford said, I want the man making that automobile to be able to buy it. He produced a minimum wage and he produced health benefits. So we built up middle America. Now, instead, with a trade policy of free trade, like monkeys on a string, there is no such thing as free trade. That is an oxymoron. Trade is something for something. If it is free, it is a gift. But with that particular policy, we have to race to the bottom in the United States of America.

I have an article from the New York Times, July 20, that I wanted to read, which points out our tremendous difficulty. I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

Of particular significance, the article quotes Steven Roach, the chief economist of Morgan Stanley. He finds that China's total exports have tripled since 1994, that 65 percent of the $244 billion increase comes from foreign companies in China, most of them United States.

Then I want you to listen to this economist about the economy, Mr. Mark M. Xanely. Before I quote him, let me say I am not an economist but I finally found one that is going to correct Alan Greenspan, because Mr. Greenspan is looking to consumer demand.

But before you can have consumer demand, you have to have consumers. Before you have consumers, you have to have producers. Before you have producers, you have to have jobs. Here is what he says:

For starters, the forecasters seemed not to grasp how much

the American economy has deviated from the standard business

cycle and the standard cures. A major reason for the

deviation is the mobility of American companies, particularly

the ease with which they now shift operations to China and

India. The wholesale movement of jobs and production overseas

is handcuffing the recovery.

Why do they have a jobless recovery? Because the economy of the United States is handcuffed with this silly cutting of the taxes, jobs and growth, jobs and growth, free trade, free trade, free trade.

Maybe it is not jobless growth, it is just jobless in the United States. This tax incentive, this stimulation is not going to create jobs in downtown Nashville, TN. The jobs will be in Shanghai, China. If you are in Nashville, TN, and you get a good fat tax break, the question arises, should you build the plant in Nashville? No, your competition has gone to China. If you are going to meet the competition, you are going to have to put that new plant, use that tax break, that stimulation--not to invest in the United States but to invest in China.

We are missing the point of history when everyone talks of this free trade nonsense. I remind them of Alexander Hamilton, a good Republican. Some of them want to replace him with the inventor of voodoo I, Ronald Reagan, on the $10 bill. You got some crazy things going on in this town. Imagine putting Ronald Reagan on the $10 bill rather than Alexander Hamilton--one of the greatest of the great. Hamilton not only helped with the Constitution, not only helped Madison with the Federalist Papers, but created a ``Report on Manufacturers.'' I have it right here.

What happened was the fledgling colony had just won its freedom when the British corresponded with us back in New York, because that is where the Capitol was at the time. They said what you ought to do back in the colonies since you won your freedom, was to trade with us what you produce best and we will trade back with you what we produce best. The doctrine was David Ricardo's, the economic doctrine of comparative advantage. It was Alexander Hamilton who won out. He even persuaded Madison, who voted for it.

He issued the ``Report on Manufacturers.'' It is too long to include in the Record. The original copy is at the Library of Congress. It can be expressed in one expression: Hamilton told the British to bug off. We are not going to remain your colony, shipping to you our agriculture, our foodstuffs, our rice, our cotton, our indigo, our coal, our iron ore. We are not going to remain a colony; no, we will become a nation state.

The first bill to ever pass Congress was for the seal of the United States--but the second bill on July 4, 1789, that passed this Congress was protectionism, a tariff bill of 50 percent on 60 articles.

We built this country over a 160-year-period with protectionism. I will never forget, every time they would tell me: Senator, you are nothing but a protectionist.

I am for free trade, free trade. The opponents do not know what the heck they are talking about. I feel sorry for them. Protectionism built the country. We did not even have the income tax until 1913. We built it on tariffs.

After Hamilton came Lincoln. People told Lincoln that to build the transcontinental rail we ought to get steel from England. The father of the Republican Party said: No, no. We are going to build our own steel mills and when we get through we will not only have the rail equipment, we will have our steel production.

Then Roosevelt in the depth of the Depression protected agriculture. People do not think I know anything about farming. But I get the farm vote every time I run. I love campaigning out in Iowa. I can tell you right now Roosevelt protected agriculture. And Eisenhower protected oil in the 1950s with quotas. We built the country with protectionism.

I will never forget when we had to have President Reagan's second inauguration right out here in the Rotunda. He raised his hand and he said, ``preserve, protect and defend.'' Then we came back here and we debated something on trade. I said something about protection and the majority jumped all over me: You are a protectionist, protectionist.

We have the Army to protect us when the enemy is out. We have Social Security to protect us from old age. We have Medicare to protect us from ill health. We have environmental laws, clean air and clean water, to protect the environment. The fundamental foundation of government is to protect.

Let's say you wanted to start an Alexander Manufacture Company. But before you can open Alexander Manufacture, you have to have a minimum wage. You have to have clean air; you have to have clean water; you have to have Social Security; you have to have Medicare; you have to have Medicaid; you have to have safe machinery; you have to have a safe working place; you

have OSHA coming around looking at you; you have to have plant closing notice; you have to have parental leave. I could go on and on. Or you can open a plant in China for 60 cents an hour, and have none of that. So companies go to China.

I will never forget, I had a friend who organized his own company out in California. I saw where he was very successful and I said: I helped you. I got your water and sewer lines when you came to South Carolina, when you had an expansion. I want you to give us that plant in South Carolina.

He said: I don't build anything in the United States. He said: I do it in China. I got research, I got sales--for 10 percent of the costs.

He did not say this but I know it: They build the factory. They provide the employment. They give people a year-to-year contract. They don't have to worry about the cycle that the economists talk about. If the cycle goes down, they do not have to renew the contract next year. They cannot lose. We are in one dickens of a fix.

I was reading the book ``Theodore Rex,'' the patron saint of my Republican friends. He is one of my heroes, too. In the book, on page 20, let me read at the turn of the century what we really had was protectionism.

The United States was already so rich in goods and services

that she was more self-sustaining than any industrial power

in history. Indeed, it could consume only a fraction of what

it produced. The rest went overseas at prices other exporters

found hard to match. As Andrew Carnegie said:

The nation that makes the cheapest steel has other nations

at its feet.

More than half the world's cotton, corn, copper and oil

flowed from the American cornucopia, and at least one-third

of all steel, iron, silver and gold. Even if the United

States were not so blessed with raw materials, the excellence

of her manufactured products guaranteed her dominance of

world markets. Current advertisements in British magazines

gave the impression that the typical Englishman waked to the

ring of an Ingersoll alarm, shaved with a Gillette razor,

combed his hair with Vaseline tonic, buttoned his Arrow

shirt, hurried downstairs for Quaker Oats, California figs,

Maxwell House coffee, commuted in a Westinghouse tram, body

by Fisher, rose to his office in an Otis elevator, worked all

day with his Waterman pen under the efficient glare of Edison

lightbulbs. ``It only remains,'' one Fleet Street wag

suggested, ``for us to take American coal to Newcastle.''

Behind the joke lay real concerns. The United States was

already supplying beer to Germany, pottery to Bohemia,

oranges to Valencia. As a result of this billowing surge in

productivity, Wall Street was awash with foreign capital.

Carnegie calculated that America could afford to buy the

entire United Kingdom and settle Britain's national debt into

the bargain. For the first time in history, transatlantic

money currents were thrusting more powerfully westward than

east. Even the Bank of England had begun to borrow money on

Wall Street. New York City seemed deemed to replace London as

the world's financial center.

Mr. President, you can see exactly what happened. We built it up. At the end of World War II, my dear friends, we had the only economy. In order to prosper, we had to spread prosperity. The way we did that was very sanguine: the Marshall plan. And it worked. We sent over money, 80-some billion in today's dollars. We sent over the equipment, the finest machine tools, automotive equipment and otherwise. We sent over the expertise, and we rebuilt Europe, we rebuilt the Pacific rim, and capitalism defeated communism. It worked.

Our trouble is it worked too well for these eager-beaver manufacturers. I remember them well because I have been in this thing, now, for 50-some years. I can see them--Oh, I get jet lag; I hate to go; oh, man, I don't want to go; and everything else of that kind.

No more, not with the computer, not with the Internet. You can send some young, aggressive executive to Shanghai to run your plant. You can set it up on your computer. You can see what is happening daily. You can be in touch on the Internet. You can run it from the 32nd floor on Sixth Avenue in New York and, man, you have it made. And they are all doing it.

So what happened with the Marshall plan? We not only spread that prosperity but we really taught these people a bad lesson because they don't think about the country. You know, you and I are supposed to think about the country. They are supposed to think about profits. They do not have a duty.

Of course, being Americans, you would think they would be a little bit more patriotic. Their organizations are against us. Now who is the enemy? in other words.

The toast of the town, Jack Welsh of GE, he believed in squeezing the lemon.

This says:

One of General Electric's CEO's, Jack Welsh's favorite

phrase is ``squeeze the lemon'' for wringing out the cost. To

help them meet the stiff goals, several of GE's business

units, including aircraft engines, power systems, industrial

systems, have been prodding suppliers to move to low-cost

Mexico where the industrial giant already employs 30,000.

That was 4 years ago.

GE even puts on supplier migration conferences to help them

make the leap.

He goes on:

Welsh's widely admired status in corporate America has lent

legitimacy to a model of business success that is built on

job and wage cuts.

This is Business Week. This is the bible of the business community, the weekly bible. Here it is, and I am quoting:

The internal report, a copy of which Business Week

obtained, says: ``GE set the tone early and succinctly:

`Migrate or be out of business; not a matter of if, just

when'. This is not a seminar just to provide information. We

expect you to move and move quickly.''

The followup: Even though GE's profits were up 80 percent at that particular time, they wanted more. You know, they are not just Jesse Jackson in civil rights. This is Jack Welsh in Business Leadership: I want it all. My time has come. I want it all.

So the 80 percent didn't suit him. But you don't jump on poor Jack; he has gone now, and he has had other troubles. Let's go to last month. General Motors and Ford: Automotive News.

I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

Mr. President, just this last month:

Ford Motor Company and General Motors are pressuring their

North American suppliers to great migration in China.

Embroiled in a price war with their foreign rivals, Ford and

GM have delivered an ultimatum. Suppliers must match a world

price that is increasingly set in China, or they must build

factories in China.

How do you like that? That is not textiles, that is the automotive backbone of the United States of America. I voted for the Chrysler bailout, so now Daimler can own them. The foreigners own all the foodstuffs. They are going to have all the banks. Now they are going to have all the automobile business.

I wish Don Evans was up in Michigan. He would tell them you get a tax cut, you get $300. What are you going to do? We are going to have growth, growth, and jobs.

Here, within the week, the Automotive News says you have to go to China and you are going to lose 900,000 industrial jobs.

Go up into Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois to what I call the rust belt. The automotive parts makers are gone. By 2010, Ford expects its purchases of parts from China to rise to $10 billion. Last year, Ford's worldwide purchases of Chinese components was less than $100 million.

I quote further:

Suppliers who do not want to migrate to China are feeling

the heat. Consider the plight of Wescast Industries. Wescast

controls 70 percent of the Big Three's exhaust manifold

business in North America.

Ford told Wescast this year that it would transfer $50

million of its purchases from Wescast to Chinese factories,

according to the industry source.

Don't give me the service economy. I know about it. My light bill in Charleston, SC, is administered in Bangalore India. My insurance policy is administered in Dublin, Ireland. That is the service economy. Here is the automotive, hard machine tools industry.

I quote further:

For manufacturers of labor-intensive components, China is

an attractive location. According to the Chinese Government

data, manufacturers in Shanghai typically pay workers $1 an

hour, plus 42 cents an hour in benefits. Factories in rural

areas generally pay wages of 60 cents an hour.

That is significantly lower than pay in Mexico which ranges

from $2 to $2.50 an hour, including wages and benefits. Here

is the

poor Senator from South Carolina fussing about 61,000 textile

jobs lost to Mexico. But we find now that the Mexican jobs

they got from South Carolina are now on the way to 60 cents

an hour with no benefits in the rural areas of China. It is

beg thy neighbor; a race to the bottom. That is the trade

policy. That is the job policy. That is the economic policy.

Don't worry about energy policy.

Heavens above, why can't we catch Kenny Boy? I raised the question at that particular time when Larry Thompson became Deputy Attorney General. He is in charge of corporate corruption enforcement and violations enforcement. Before he came to Justice, he worked in a law firm in Atlanta. His firm was representing who? Kenny Boy Lay, of Enron. So I raised the question of a conflict of interest. What did he say? Oh, he didn't work on that particular client. He didn't have anything to do with it.

But I run a firm, and you make money, and I make money.

Come on. Here it is 2\1/2\ years later--and we have gotten everybody, including Martha Stewart--for one little stock thing. This fellow, Larry Thompson, wants to know what he should be indicted for. I can draw it up for him. We had the hearing in California before the Committee on Commerce, Space, Science and Transportation.

I turned to the witness, David Freeman. I said: Now, Mr. Freeman, you say all this happened with Enron, and Kenny Boy may not have known anything about it. I said: In fact, this morning on television I saw Mrs. Lay, his wife, and she said Kenny Boy didn't know anything about it.

Mr. Freeman said he was the architect. He knew all about it. He designed it. Take that testimony of the knowledge of what is going on, the Enron fraud of California, the wrecked economy, and they are now calling for a recall of the Governor because of the problems Enron helped create in that state.

I heard my distinguished colleague from Idaho. He said the economy went from a surplus to a deficit, and the Governor didn't do anything about it.

Let us transfer that to Washington. The President started off with a surplus. He said he even had a $1 trillion rainy day fund. The budget was $53 billion in the red when he talked on February 27, 2001 to the Congress. He talked about the $2.6 billion he would set aside for Social Security. He said there was $2 billion for the budget needs in defense security, and he said he had $1 trillion left over. He was in the red then. But we have Enron accounting here in Washington. If he has gone from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a $4 trillion deficit, is anybody asking for the recall of the President? Of course not.

But they think that is par for the course out there in the political intramurals in California. Come on. What is going on.

It is not just GE. It is not just Ford. It is not just General Motors, or IBM--Big Blue.

This was last week, July 22, from the New York Times: ``IBM Explores Shift of Some Jobs Overseas.''

I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

Mr. President, a California IBM employee relations executive said:

. . . three million service jobs were expected to shift to

foreign workers . . . I.B.M. should move some of its jobs now

done in the United States, including software design jobs, to

India and other countries.

I could read on and on. But you can see it. It is in the Record.

You have Business Week, ``High-Tech in China.'' I don't want to include the magazine itself. But this is a quote from a Business Week article from earlier this year:

Is Your Job Next? A new round of globalization is sending

up-scale jobs offshore. They include chip design, engineer,

basic research, financial analysis. Can America lose these

jobs and still prosper?

You have not just Business Week but Fortune magazine from June of this year. Here is one of the executives quoted here:

``I've been in this business for over 20 years, and it's

the worst I've ever seen'', says David Hoffmann, CEO of DHR

International, a Chicago-based recruiting firm. ``Nothing

even comes close to this.''

. . . relocation of the jobs to offshore sites. Machines--

or low-wage foreigners--could just as easily do their work.

. . . shifting jobs to cheaper locales like India and the

Philippines. It's not just call centers anymore. Indian

radiologists now analyze CT scans and chest X-rays for

American patients in an office park in Bangalore, not far

from where Ernst & Young has 200 accountants processing U.S.

tax returns. E&Y's tax prep center in India is only 18 months

old . . . but the company already has plans to double its

size. Corporate America is quickly learning that a cubicle

can be replicated overseas as easily as a shop floor can.

Irwin Kellner, who is now at Hofstra University, was at Manufacturers Hanover. We have had him before committees of the Congress year in and year out. I quote:

``White-collar workers and college graduates are in a state

of shock,'' says Kellner. ``It appears these job losses are

permanent. They're not necessarily coming back when the

economy does.''

Mr. President, we are in deep trouble. We are into a real trade war. We are into a thing of national survival.

Let me see here. Quoting:

At the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business,

96 percent of grads in 2000 had an offer when they collected

their sheepskin. Only 72 percent of last year's grads were as

lucky--and this year isn't shaping up any better. Even at

Harvard the percentage of grads without job offers has gone

from 3 percent in 2000 to 13 percent now. For schools further

down the food chain, almost half the class will graduate

without even one offer.

Quoting further:

. . . in the past two or three years companies have turned

to India and the Philippines for much more sophisticated

tasks: financial analysis, software design, tax preparation,

even the creation of PowerPoint presentations.

Quoting still further:

And how cheap. Starting pay for an American accountant,

says Kline, typically ranges from $40,000 to $50,000 [in the

United States]. In Bangalore the accountants are paid less

than half that.

Another quote from the article:

. . . Forrester Research predicts that 3.3 million service

jobs will move to countries like India, Russia, China, and

the Philippines.

The firm of A.T. Kearney talked about shifting 500,000 jobs, or 8 percent of the U.S. workforce, abroad by 2008.

I quote:

Any function that does not require face-to-face contact is

now perceived as a candidate for offshore relocation.

So, Mr. President, I could go on and on. But let me just say, we are in a struggle for our economic survival. I have talked to you that free trade is a loser. We are losing all those jobs. And who is the enemy? Not just General Motors, not just IBM. I say it authoritatively because I know who wants this losing trade bill--you can start with the National Association of Manufacturers. I got into a struggle with Victor Schwartz there in the 1970s, 25 years ago. But it is not only the National Association of Manufacturers. It is the Business Roundtable, the Conference Board--yes, my dear colleagues, the United States Chamber of Commerce.

The United States Chamber of Commerce is no longer interested in main street America. It was. I won U.S. Chamber of Commerce awards during my 1992 race. Bob Thompson of Greenville, SC, was the president. And I was the poster boy of the United States Chamber of Commerce. We had stopped labor law reform. We had eight cloture votes. My distinguished friend Russell Long was chairman of the Finance Committee, and we agreed the eighth vote would count. That would decide it. We would not go any further. And up until about 20 minutes before the vote, he had me beat. I heard from a friend that I might be able to persuade Ed Zorinsky of Nebraska, and I raced over to the fourth floor of the Russell Building. The rollcall had already been called. And I saw Ed coming down the hall, and I said: Ed, I need your help. And he said: I will help you, Fritz.

And we called that roll, and we won the eighth rollcall vote on cloture. This crowd gets steamed up over two or three cloture votes. So let's get to the record. I helped defeat an eighth cloture vote myself. And as a result, I was the poster boy of the United States Chamber of Commerce.

Now, Tom Donohue--a nice fellow, absolutely honest--I worked with him when he represented the truckers. He knows nothing about international trade, but he is going for the money. He is for tort reform. I never heard him mention a bit about tort reform when he represented the truckers. But now he is, by gosh, the expert on free trade, free trade.

When I ran in 1998, they put out pamphlets against me. They endorsed my opponent, even though I had been their poster boy. I had not changed my vote. I was the same way in trade in 1998 as I was in 1992. But you can see how this crowd is. They headed for the overseas barn. I can tell you that right now.

So you have the National Association of Manufacturers, you have the Business Roundtable, you have the Conference Board. You have the United States Chamber of Commerce. I have won about six of these National Federation of Independent Business small business awards, but now they are being taken over. The U.S. Chamber and the Business Roundtable have gotten hold of them and said: Oh, we are going to get you some writeoffs, some tax breaks, too. So they are for free trade now.

To increase consumer demand, you have to have consumers. In order to have consumers, you must first have producers. And in order to have producers, you have to have jobs. And we are losing them hand over fist.

I have been the author of five textile trade bills that have passed the Senate. Four of those bills have gone to the President of the United States. Four have been vetoed--vetoed. President

Carter vetoed one. President Reagan vetoed two. And President George Herbert Walker Bush vetoed the last one. And we came within two votes over on the House side of over turning the veto. We had a majority, but we did not have the two-thirds necessary to override.

The other enemy is the Retail Federation. They order so many hundred thousand dozen shirts, or whatever it is, from China. Then, if the market is good, and they run short, they call up New Jersey quick and get another hundred thousand dozen.

Now, what they get from New Jersey and what they get from China is not the same price. They get a much greater profit on the Chinese import than they do on the New Jersey shirt. I know because I got a New Jersey shirt on. Yes, sir, I believe in domestic production.

Years ago, I used to represent Pontiac folks, and a bunch of other automobile dealers. Once I bought a new car, and I was so careful to buy a domestic car; no foreign car. My neighbor said: Fritz, how much did you pay for this new Pontiac? I was looking at the sticker price, when I see on the sticker: FOB Montreal. I had bought a foreign car. I had bought a foreign car and didn't even know it. Pontiac had gone to Canada to make it because they saved $800 on the health bill on every car.

So you can understand, this has been going on for years. But we are draining the swamp. There aren't jobs left in America.

And you cannot find a hometown newspaper that has endorsed protectionist trade--I don't mind saying the word.

You have to protect your standard of living. We Republicans and Democrats, we say: Clean air, clean water, minimum wage, Medicare, Medicaid, plant closings, parental leave. If you put that requirement on manufacturers, you have to protect it. You can't just go over where they have none of those protections and 60 cents an hour.

The newspapers make a majority of their profit on retail advertising. So the retail federation and all the big stores call the main advertisers. They go down to the editors and they give them a handout. I have compared the editorials in different parts of the country. They give them the handout, and they write the editorial. Free trade, free trade--they think they are being wise.

Free trade loses jobs. We are losing the jobs right and left. But everyone is for free trade: the hometown newspaper, the Business Roundtable, the Conference Boards, the United States Chamber, the retailers, all of K Street. Have you ever had a K Street lawyer come here and ask you to vote against free trade? You can't find one.

You and I are paid to protect the jobs of America. We are not paid to make a profit. But come on, you can't find a K Street lawyer who wants to protect jobs.

In the Administration they think this is wonderful. They can open up the islands of Indonesia and transship through Singapore the electronic parts back into America from cheap labor. So they are all working against us.

It is not just President Bush. President Clinton was for free trade, free trade. He is the one who passed NAFTA. He was the one who was going to open up and create 200,000 jobs. He impoverished the State of South Carolina, I can tell you that. We have lost 61,000 textile jobs in my little State. Where we have a BMW plant, 3 years ago we had 3.2 percent unemployment. It is over 8 percent unemployment now.

Don't tell me about free trade, free trade. I have watched the outflow here. So you have the Government against us. Then if everyone is against us, who could be for us, asks the Good Book? Us. That is all I am trying to do, is wake my colleagues up to get out of this nonsense. I see the Senator from Wisconsin. I know the plants out there, too. I did work for them. I carpetbagged a few of those plants, too. I brought them to South Carolina.

But we have to move to rebuild America. We have to stop whining: I am for fair trade. I am for balancing the field, leveling the field.

That is all garbage. That is baloney, if I have ever heard it. We have to start and compete in the international economy. It is a trade war. It is very viable. It is very fair. It is very understandable. We have to get in there. Having rebuilt Europe and the Pacific rim, we have to, by gosh, get in there, and in order to remove a barrier, raise a barrier. Then remove them both, go by their rule book. We are Goody Two-shoes, and we want to set the good example like we have done for 50 some years. And we have lost our shirt in manufacturing.

We can go right to the tax law. I am going down the list now. We can go to the tax law that says if you manufacture overseas and keep your profit, you can build a new plant. You don't have to pay taxes on that profit. Or we can turn around and go along with Charlie Rangel on the House side--I have the bill in on the Senate side--and say if you manufacture and keep your jobs in America, you get a tax credit. If you go overseas, you lose. You get a tax increase.

That is what we ought to do. Make it so rather than trying to revive Europe and the Pacific rim, we have to revive the United States.

I am delighted to.

Certainly, it ought to be. That is our duty here in the Congress. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says not the President but the Congress of the United States shall regulate foreign commerce. But what have we done? We have got in a fix through the Finance Committee and Ways and Means. They got fast track. And I would like to vote for Chile because Chile has a free economy, a market-based economy, a revered judiciary, labor rights, environmental laws, and a balanced budget. But I can't vote with that immigration thing included. Under fast track, I can't amend. I can't debate. I can't discuss. I can't do anything.

Let me bring up a red herring that will excite everybody. I introduced it in January. I said: Good gosh, we are going to war, and we don't have a way to pay for it. We paid for the Revolutionary War with a property tax. That is the first property tax that passed in this country. We got to the Civil War, and Abraham Lincoln put on an estate tax and a dividend tax. And we were running around here talking about taking off the estate and dividend tax.

I said, come on, we paid for World War II. We paid for Korea. We paid for Vietnam. We paid for the gulf war. The Saudis did a good bit of that, as we all know.

I said, I am going to put in a value-added tax. Every industrialized country has a value-added tax. Why? Why do I want to do that? It is twofold: One, if I take and manufacture this desk in Washington, DC, I have to pay all the income, sales, corporate taxes. And when I ship it over to Paris, France, I add on a 17 percent VAT.

If I manufactured that same desk in Paris, France, when it leaves the port of La Havre to come to Washington, we rebate the 17 percent. And so it is a 17 percent advantage to manufacture in Paris rather than in Washington. I want to reconcile that differential immediately with a value-added tax. I want to pay for the war. That is the trouble this country is in.

Bill Clinton brought the budget deficit down. He put in an increase in tax. I voted to increase Social Security. I voted to increase the gasoline tax.

I voted to increase the top payer income tax. We voted also to cut spending, and we had an 8-year economic boom. And now we just had three quarters of recession in 2001, a bad economy all through 2002, and they kept blaming it on the war. The war in Iraq only costs $4 billion a month. That is $48 billion year, and when the President talked on February 27, he said: I have $1 trillion for unforeseen needs.

The tax cuts have wrecked the economy. Everybody knows it. They are

running around--jobs and growth, jobs and growth--like a bunch of children trying to sell that nonsense. So we ought to pay for the war, reconcile this trade differential and manufacturing differential. We ought to, by gosh, enforce our dumping laws. The competition is not for money or profit. The competition is for market share.

When the Japanese sell below cost in the United States and make it up in the domestic market in Tokyo, we have to enforce dumping laws. The special Trade Representative runs out to do that and says we are going to do away with the dumping laws. That is loss leaders.

I had an antitrust case and carried it to the Supreme Court on a loss leader. I know the law of loss leaders. That is what you have in international competition. There are a bunch of loss leaders and they keep taking over, even this year, a greater share of the American automobile market. So we have to enforce our dumping laws. We have to eliminate the Trade Commission. That is another gimmick put in by the Finance Committee.

The Finance Committee--when you have a dumping violation, you file it before the International Trade Administration. They investigate and make a finding. After they make a finding, they have a sweetheart deal. They kick it over to the International Trade Commission, and they never find injury. I can tell you they have two or three exceptions since I have been talking about it, but we can save $43 million and let the finding entity, the International Trade Administration, that gives the penalty on what is to be done. We can save money there.

We need more Customs agents, and we need a department of trade. We have the Department of Manufacturing in the Commerce Committee. We can gear up for the trade war. Don't worry about the Afghan war. I think we may have created more terrorists than we have gotten rid of. The jury is out in Iraq, as to whether or not we can work out the peace. I can tell we don't have any friends in downtown Baghdad. It is a shooting gallery. They are killing our soldiers every day.

What we have to do is get into this trade war and compete.

Now, finally, the administration says they are going to get up consumer confidence. They have passed three voodoo tax cuts. Of course, Ronald Reagan passed voodoo 1, and George Herbert Walker Bush is the one who called it voodoo. How are you going to cut your revenues and increase your revenues? You never do that. You will never find a government doing that. But come to Washington, and they know everything up here. So they are going to increase the consumer confidence with tax cuts they had in 2001, 2002, and already this year.

With those three tax cuts of over $3.1 trillion, here is the news that came out yesterday: the consumer confidence index dropped 7 points to 7.6 in July, a sharp and unexpected drop.

We have a $698 billion budget deficit projected for this year. It is already $503 billion.

(Mr. CRAPO assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, you can see the effects. You can see Wall Street is frozen. They are not going to invest when the interest rates are on the increase.

The Concord Coalition, headed up by former colleagues, Senator Kerrey, Senator Nunn, and Senator Rudman and now chaired by none other than a Republican, Pete Peterson, former Secretary of Commerce under President Nixon, released its report on fiscal responsibility. Overall, you have the Republican chairman of the Concord giving them an ``F.''

So there we are. We don't want to compete. We have a job policy in the U.S. Congress of actually eliminating jobs like gangbusters.

Our security is like a three-legged stool. We have the one leg of the values that we have as a nation. Everyone in the world--at least until Iraq--knew that we stood for human rights, individual freedom, and democracy. That second leg, military, is unquestioned. The third leg, economic, is fractured--intentionally so with the Marshall Plan. But we prevailed with capitalism over communism in the cold war. It worked.

But now we have taught corporate America a bad lesson, and in order to compete and make even greater profits, whether it is high-tech or service or hard manufacture, they are leaving the Nation in droves. We are sitting by talking about a little Energy bill or a judgeship.

The country is going to hell in an economic hand basket and we are the ones responsible under the Constitution and we are not doing anything about it.

I yield the floor.

Will my friend yield for a question?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

First of all, I thank the Senator for his, as usual, very concise reasoning over where we are. We are at a bit of an impasse because of what my colleague said.

I want to ask my friend, is he aware that for the Kuhl nomination both Senators from her State oppose her confirmation? Is my colleague aware of that?

I want to further say to my friend, when Bill Clinton was President and Orrin Hatch was chair of the Judiciary Committee, if one of the two Senators from that particular State did not send back a permission slip--or, as we call it around here, a blue slip--the nomination never moved forward.

Is my colleague aware that rule is changed by the chairman and, indeed, ignoring Senators' views? I would say through the Chair, is my colleague aware that Senator Hatch changed that rule?

Mr. President, I have one last question for my colleague through the Chair.

I just want to say, as someone from a State that has been painfully hurt by the electricity scams that went on on the west coast--and I think Senator Cantwell has put it best when she relays the story that when she goes home--and I can tell her, it happens to me, too--people say: Why isn't Ken Lay in jail--Ken Lay, the head of Enron Corporation?

They ask me about Jeff Skilling who came before the Commerce Committee and defended these schemes. He didn't know anything about all the schemes that came to light that hurt the people of California to the tune of probably an $11 billion theft.

So I ask my friend, through the Chair, this question: We have no control over when and if ever Ken Lay goes to jail or the other scoundrels who did this to the people of the west coast by making these phony shortages and stealing their money for things they need to survive. We don't control that. The administration does, through the Attorney General's Office. I hope they are moving aggressively, but it is awful slow.

What we do control is this Energy bill and this electricity title. My friend is so right to try and protect his people and the people from every State in the Union from what my people went through in California and Senator Cantwell's people went through.

I am asking my question. Isn't it true, I say to my friend, that this is the only way the Congress can assert itself since we have no control over what happens in the courts, that we can do something about sparing your people and the other people around this country from what California went through?

Mr. President, thank you very much. I thank my colleague from Washington for her continued leadership and information about what is a very complicated matter. It isn't easy to understand and follow all the market manipulation that occurred in our Western States. But she has explained it. I intend to do so as well.

Let me say this: When the majority leader says we have to have an Energy bill, I agree we need an Energy bill. However, we need a good Energy bill. We don't need a bad Energy bill. If we have an Energy bill which doesn't attack what happened in the west coast, then I want to say to my colleagues from every State in the Union--and I will be speaking for about 15 or 20 minutes--I will tell every colleague here from every State in the Union their people could very well go through what my people went through in California.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, the reason I waited for 2 hours this morning to speak today is to send a warning to my colleagues. Read what you are about to do. I find it incredible that instead of continuing on the present path--which is to amend the electricity title in a way that would make it better, in ways that would protect the American people from the type of scam we witnessed in the west coast, which in my State alone cost us about $9 billion, if not more, and which is responsible for about a third of the problems we are facing financially in my State--instead of fixing that electricity title, what do we have? We have an amendment filed stopping our ability to make any changes to it, and which, by the way, eviscerates all of the 21 amendments we have worked so hard on during the 8 days we have been on this bill, including amendments by Republicans and Democrats alike, dealing with biomass, LIHEAP, oil independence, clean coal, hydrogen, and so on.

Even the 21 amendments we worked so hard on have been left out of this bill which is now pending, and if we go to it, those 21 amendments will be gone.

I also hope that leadership is working now to straighten out where we are. We are in chaos, in my opinion, right now.

When the majority leader says we need an Energy bill, I want to say we need a good Energy bill.

The last thing we need is a bad Energy bill. Let's look at this bill. This bill has an electricity title which goes forward with deregulation in the face of the disaster we had on the west coast. Why colleagues would go ahead with this is beyond me.

But I have to say, in California, every single member of the legislature--Republican and Democrat--years ago voted for such a bill. It was signed by Pete Wilson, who is the one who brought it to the legislature. And it led to a total disaster. So maybe my colleagues don't understand the fact that this is one where you better read every line and you better understand what you are voting for because this one could come back to bite you really hard.

In the bill we have huge subsidies for nuclear power. We don't even know what to do with the waste. I see my colleague from Nevada crossing the floor. He is struggling with this. What are you going to do with the waste that lasts thousands of years that is so dangerous? We don't even know. But this subsidizes new nuclear powerplants.

This bill has done nothing about fuel economy--zilch. The amendment that passed was backed, frankly, by the big auto companies, and it does nothing, at a time when we are hoping to change our dependence on foreign oil.

What we have is a bill that ignores what happened to us in California. I see that my senior Senator is here. And no one knows better than she and I what this has meant to our people. And we are trying to be good colleagues to our colleagues to say: Wait. Stop. Time out. Don't go down that path that we went down.

In the midst of the crisis, I got a letter from a gentleman who lives in Bishop, CA. I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

This gentleman wrote to me. His name is Zack Ranch. Actually, his wife wrote:

I am writing to ask your help. Our family has owned and

operated an alfalfa ranch in the Hammil Valley since 1965.

Our crop is irrigated in the summer with water pumped from

wells, by electric pumps. We have just been informed by

Edison that our power rate will double this summer, and will

possibly be raised beyond that in the future. Since we have a

narrow profit margin to begin with, this will effectively put

us out of business. Edison has told us that there is to be no

break for farmers. In the past, we have been on a ``time of

use'' program in the summer where we pump only during off

peak hours, but we aren't able to find if this program will

continue. Any information you can offer, or any help you can

give us, will be greatly appreciated.

Well, we lost so many small businesses and farmers during this period. It would have been worse if the State did not go in. Governor Davis, at that time, took over from the power companies and protected the people from the types of increases that consumers in Washington had, although we went up 25 percent, which is very hard to take, especially for a small business that is working on a small profit margin.

Let me show you a chart that demonstrates what happened to us at the height of our problems. This is the Enron scam. I would say to you, Mr. President, in this bill it is even going to be worse for your people because this bill has done away with the one agency that protects you against big mergers; it has essentially eviscerated the power of the

This is a letter we got ahold of in the Commerce Committee where the lawyers were, in essence, going into all of these schemes and basically telling Enron they were running afoul of State law, and yet the schemes continued. They went on and on.

Here are the rest of the strategies used that Senator Cantwell is trying to do away with, trying to do away with these schemes. That is why she has a number of amendments.

Death Star:

Enron gets paid for moving energy to relieve congestion

without actually moving any energy or relieving any

congestion.

This is detailed in the letter I just put in the Record.

Load Shift:

By knowingly increasing the congestion costs, Enron is

effectively increasing the costs to all market participants

in the real time market.

This is a great one. Exporting California power:

This strategy appears not to present any problems, other

than a public relations risk arising from the fact that such

exports may have contributed to California's declaration of a

Stage 2 Emergency.

They were taking power out of my State, robbing my State of its power. Be careful. This could happen to you. As Senator Dorgan said, he gets cheap power. In this bill that cheap power can be brought out of his State and suddenly they are faced with a lack of power. Is this the kind of Energy bill we need so badly, to take these schemes and allow them to happen in your States?

Inc-ing Load:

The answer is to artificially increase (inc) the load on

the schedule submitted to the ISO.

It is all fraud. It has all been exposed. We know now why we faced the kind of crisis we faced. Yet we can't get colleagues to listen to Senator Cantwell, to vote for her amendment. Then we get yelled at that we are not doing the right thing for the country.

I don't understand what is going on here. If we truly care about our constituents as we say we do, if we truly want to fight for our families, if we care about our small businesses, why would we pass a bill that allows these scams to continue? Why do we have to get lectured about the fact we are derailing something? I am trying to spare what happened to me and my constituents in my State from happening to you and your constituencies in your States. For that, we are being called obstructionist.

This is another way to look at what happened. Our demand for electricity in California during our crisis period went up 4 percent. Remember, I told you, we were the most energy efficient. The reason it went up 4 percent is we are growing. I must remind you, I represent 35 million people. We have the fifth largest economy in the world. So our electricity demand went up 4 percent and our wholesale cost of electricity went up 266 percent.

No business could survive if our State hadn't come in and taken over

when the power companies went under. Our power companies went under. Our electric utility companies went under. It is hard to imagine. They had been in business for 100 years or more.

I know my friend from Texas is raring to give her statement so I won't go on anymore.

I think before there are charges of obstructionism, we ought to take a deep breath and think about what happened to the largest State in the Union, when we were scammed by the private sector, by people with no morality, by people with no ethics, by people who should be in jail. We were scammed, and we are trying to prevent that from happening all over the country.

Instead, what we have is a bill that makes it easier for these scams to continue. What we have is a bill that continues on this path that will hurt consumers all over the country.

What Senator Cantwell has been fighting for is the opportunity to offer amendments. With what has happened here now, that is no longer possible. So, yes, some of us are going to continue to tell the story. Some of us are going to say: Let us learn from history. This isn't ancient history; this is 1999 and 2000.

What we want to do is make sure we have a system that will protect small business and will protect families and will protect us all from robber barons who come in and set up elaborate scams, giving them names: Death Star, Fat Boy, Get Shorty, Inc-ing, Ricochet. This isn't just some one person who had a thought. This was a conspiracy to harm consumers.

As Senator Cantwell said, electricity is a necessity. It is more than a commodity. You can do without a new suit; you can do without a pair of shoes if you already have one; but you cannot do without electricity, if you are in business or if you live in some of the desert areas in my State where senior citizens can get a heatstroke if they don't have their air-conditioner on. Senator Cantwell and I and others simply want to make sure that what happened to us does not happen to us again and what happened to us does not happen to you in your States.

I thank the Senate for its indulgence. I am very hopeful that our leaders are working out a way for us to walk away from this electricity title which is so damaging and move forward with a bill that doesn't hurt the people we represent. None of us wants to do it. Let's not do it.

I yield the floor.

It is very interesting that you said this because when we heard from Mr. Wolfowitz in front of the Foreign Relations Committee where we had a hearing on the rebuilding of Iraq, the first thing he said matched what Mr. Bremer said, who is in charge of the rebuilding. He said: Those people over there need jobs. They need to get the economy going. They need jobs.

And I say to my friend, isn't there something ironic about that, that there is a total understanding of what the folks in Iraq need, when I could say in my State and yours and all through America, this should be the priority of the President in this country.

I ask unanimous consent that at the completion of my remarks, Senator Baucus be recognized for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. President, before Senator Feingold leaves the Chamber, I thank him for his comments. Since he is my seatmate on the Foreign Relations Committee, which in itself is an honor for me, I recall that we were very skeptical from the start about going it essentially alone in Iraq. He and I have pressed very hard to work through the U.N. weapons inspectors and to have the whole world breathing down Saddam's neck. Now, as it turned out, we essentially did it alone and we are bearing the burden of these tragic deaths every day, deaths that are almost going, I hate to say, unnoticed now, although some of us talk about the brave soldiers we are losing.

When it comes to the funding of this war, we are up to $45 billion to $50 billion a year, even without the rebuild. As my friend knows, because he has been a major force for fiscal responsibility, we cannot even share that burden. Even when countries such as the Poles come forward, and we are grateful to them for sharing the burden on the ground, we are paying for it. How can we sustain these costs at a time when our deficits are skyrocketing?

So we are in a bit of a mess, and I hope the President will move more forcefully toward internationalizing the rebuilding of Iraq and sharing the burden because that is the answer. That is what a real leader has to do.

We all said that the 21st century would be America's century but that does not mean we do it alone. It means we lead the world against tyrants and against the war on terror. So I wanted to thank my friend before he left the Chamber.

Nomination of Carolyn B. Kuhl

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a judicial nomination that has gotten no attention on the Senate floor thus far and yet we are going to have a vote on this nomination, as I understand it, tomorrow, the nomination of a woman from California which was ill advised from the start because there was no advice and consent done at all from this administration, at least to this Senator.

When I was notified that this nomination was going forward, I had several meetings with the Bush administration people and I asked, why are you choosing someone who is so far out of the center and so far to the extreme right, when the President said he would govern from the center?

In fact, I will never forget the night he declared victory, after the Supreme Court made their ruling, and the President came out, very appropriately, and I thought somberly, and said, I am going to bring this country together and I am going to govern from the center. I took him at his word.

When President Clinton was in office, I got a pretty stern lecture from Chairman Orrin Hatch, for whom I have

great respect. He said, Barbara, I want you to know that if you recommend any judges that are outside the center, forget about it. It is not going to happen. We are not going to let it happen. We want moderates.

I do not understand why that does not apply now. It applied to President Clinton. It ought to apply to President Bush. When President Bush said, I want to govern from the center, I took him at his word.

When the Constitution says the Senate shall be part of the advice and consent function, that does not mean we roll over and play dead to any President, be he or she Democrat or Republican. It means the President should seek our advice and must win our consent.

So when we see a judicial nominee come to this floor, where one of the home-state Senators never even sent back what we call the blue slip, which is sort of the permission slip, giving permission to move forward, when we see that being ignored after it said for many years on the slip, this nomination will not go forward unless you send back the slip--I ask unanimous consent that the blue slip be printed in the Record.

There is a note from Senator Hatch when he was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton administration, which I would like to read. The blue slip we used to receive from Senator Hatch said: ``Please return this form as soon as possible . . . No further proceedings on this nominee will be scheduled until both blue slips''-- that means from each Senator--``have been returned by the nominee's home State Senators.''

That is what we all used to receive from Chairman Hatch. That was his former policy. Then all of a sudden it changed when the President changed.

So on process, this was a nomination that should not be before us. Then the bar kept being raised. Senator Feinstein said, let's have a hearing on this nominee and let me see whether I think she ought to move forward. Senator Feinstein listened, asked deep questions, pondered, and then said, no. And she will express for herself why she said no.

So we have two home State Senators against this nomination. What happens? The nominee is coming to the floor for a vote. We have not even debated it or discussed it.

I wanted to apologize to my friend from Montana, because I know he is talking on another subject, but this is crucial. I predict this Senate will not give the go-ahead to this nominee and I want to make the record clear as to why.

It is pretty clear that if we look at the values shared by the American people on such matters as privacy, civil rights, women's rights, access to the courts, whistleblower protection, legal intimidation, the right to the disabled and the environment, on every single one of these very key American values this nominee is way outside the mainstream. There are years of actions that prove what I have said.

I do not relish this situation. Everyone who knows me knows that I fight so hard for women's rights and for women to move forward and to break the glass ceiling, but when we see the record of this nominee, I have no choice. I do not deserve to be here if I do not make the case against this nomination and why I believe the proceedings should not move forward.

So let me first show how many groups are against this nominee and how controversial this nomination is. I am going to go through these. I am not going to read every name on it but I want to give a sense of this list: the AFL-CIO, the Alliance for Justice--I am skipping some--Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Association of Flight Attendants, Breast Cancer Action--and I am going to explain why--Breast Cancer Fund, California Women's Law Center, Clean Water Action, Committee for Judicial Independence, Communications Workers of America, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Feminist Majority.

Let's go to the next chart. I am skipping many of these because of the time constraints I feel but let me continue. Foundation for a Smoke-Free America--and I will explain why they got involved--Friends of the Earth, Japanese American Citizens League, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Los Angeles African American Women's Political Action Committee, Mineral Policy Center, MoveOn.org, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Council of Jewish Women, National Employment Lawyers Association, National Organization for Women, National Women's Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council. Again, I am reading a partial list here.

Another list, and this is incredible. This is one judicial nominee that is coming before us the day before we leave when we are in the middle of an Energy bill that the other side says is so important. They are throwing at us one of the most controversial nominees one could find. Office and Professional Employees International Union, Progressive Jewish Alliance, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association, Sierra Club, Smokefree Educational Services, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, UNITE, United American Nurses, United Farm Workers, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. Again, I am reading a partial list.

The last chart: Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees; Wilderness Society; Women's Committee, Labor Committee for Latin American Advancement; Women's Leadership Alliance; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, and a number of members of the California delegation. This gives a sense of the breadth of opposition.

Let me start off telling a story why so many people are so upset about this nomination. It has to do with a case Judge Kuhl decided in the California courts that deals with a woman who is a cancer victim. I will read this woman's public statement.

My name is Azucena Sanchez-Scott. I am a survivor of breast

cancer and Judge Kuhl's courtroom. I stand before you now

because I want to tell my story so that other people will

never have to re-live it.

This is a woman who was harmed by Judge Kuhl in a way she will never forget for the rest of her life.

Nothing about my cancer is easy. Not the chemotherapy, not

the fear, and certainly not the emotional pain or

disfigurement. As a person battling cancer, each visit to the

doctor brings questions about my future and my health. That

is where I was when my doctor and a stranger walked in. The

doctor offered no introduction and proceeded to examine me

and asked that I disrobe. It was only when I left the office

and inquired with the receptionist that I learned that the

stranger was a sales representative for a drug company with

no medical reason for being there.

She continues:

As a cancer survivor, I trusted that my doctor would make

decisions in my best interest and my doctor violated that

trust. The injustice, however, did not end there.

Judge Kuhl heard my case and found no fault in the doctor's

actions. She ruled that it was my obligation to protect my

privacy in his exam room. That I should have battled cancer

and my doctor's judgment at the same time. And, she denied my

request to allow a jury trial to determine if the intrusion

was highly offensive to a reasonable person.

We were taught not to question our doctors and I know as a

medical health professional that I have an obligation to

protect my client's privacy. I was shocked to find that the

doctor did not honor this obligation and I think that is why

Judge Kuhl's decision was unanimously reversed on appeal. If,

however, there is any duty for a citizen to ask questions as

a standard to protect our rights to privacy, it lies with the

Judiciary Committee.

The point is, a woman has breast cancer. She goes to the doctor for a

brutally difficult exam. She is humiliated in the office of that doctor by a total stranger, a drug salesman she later finds out, and Judge Kuhl rules against this woman, against her privacy rights, and tells her she should have asked, she should have known to ask who this stranger was that her doctor brought into the room.

This is someone the Bush administration wants to promote and give a lifetime judgeship to?

I can tell you what the breast cancer groups say. They normally do not get involved in these fights, but they are involved in this one. This is from Breast Cancer Action:

On behalf of Breast Cancer Action and our over 8,000

members in California, I am writing in support of your

opposition to the nomination of Judge Carolyn Kuhl to the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

They say:

Based on Kuhl's refusal to protect fundamental woman's

rights in cases such as this, the BCA opposes her nomination.

This is highly unusual.

We have another letter from another organization I want to share.

How can anyone be so cold and heartless as to tell someone suffering like this that they have to ask, Who is in the room? in a doctor's office?

The Breast Cancer Fund wrote:

Quite simply, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl does not show the level

of sound judgment necessary for an appellate court judge.

I know we have mostly men in the Senate, although we are moving forward with about 14 women. But any woman in the Senate will tell you, going for that type of an exam, even if you are totally healthy and not just coming out of a breast cancer operation, it is very difficult, it is very nerve racking, it is very embarrassing.

To have a woman judge rule against Ms. Sanchez-Scott's privacy is extraordinary to me. To have these kinds of letters from groups like this is extraordinary, and it ought to be extraordinary to every single Senator who should vote not to allow this nomination to go forward.

I will quickly go through the other issues where Carolyn Kuhl is outside the mainstream. We mentioned she is outside the mainstream on privacy rights. She is outside the mainstream on civil rights.

Kuhl urged the Reagan administration to adopt a position

that would grant tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University.

More than 200 lawyers in the Justice Department's civil

rights division signed a letter in opposition to this

position. The New York Times (May 26, 1983) characterized her

as part of a ``band of young zealots'' who urged the legal

switch.

She went forward and defended tax-exempt status for Bob Jones University even though it discriminated on the basis of race. Is this someone we want to elevate? She is outside the mainstream on civil rights.

She is also outside the mainstream on access to the courts. What makes our country so great is that we have the ability to go to the courthouse door and get into that courtroom. We have that right as Americans.

She argued that organizations do not have standing to sue in Federal court on behalf of their members. She called on the Supreme Court to reject the principle of associational standing, effectively undermining the ability of unions to enforce labor laws.

So if you believe, as she does, that a union does not have a right to sue on behalf of the members, that even, say, the NRA, the National Rifle Association, does not have a right to sue, whether the Chamber of Commerce should not have the right to sue, whether an environmental organization should not have the right to sue on behalf of its members, then go ahead and support her. But that undermines a basic, fundamental principle of our laws that organizations have standing to sue on behalf of their members. Whether it is the PTA or any other group, they should have the right and have their day in court.

Carolyn Kuhl is outside the mainstream on women's rights. As I go through this, I hope everyone understands it is not as if there were not other people who could have been nominated in California, great people who were Republicans in my State. And I begged the administration to do it. They said: Send a list. And I sent them a list of several wonderful Republicans in my State who would have been great nominees. No, they were going to go forward with this extreme nomination--whatever their reasons, I cannot say--even in the face of the two home State Senators' opposition.

Carolyn Kuhl supported a gag rule on title X funds, filing an amicus brief on behalf of the American Academy of Medical Ethics, an organization which represents more than 25,000 doctors who oppose abortion. She argued for restricted access to contraception, imposing additional requirements on recipients of title X funds.

We all know our country is divided on the right to choose. My State is very strongly pro-choice, that is true. But in the country it is split. I cannot believe we are split on the issue of contraception. Here we have a nominee who is for limiting access to contraception. This is outside the mainstream on women's rights. She ruled against a rape victim in favor of an insurance company when she had the opportunity to rule in favor of that victim and get that victim support.

She supported a restriction on access to abortion and urged reversal of Roe.

This is when she worked for the Department of Justice. This is what she said:

. . . Roe v. Wade is so far flawed . . . that the Court

should reconsider that decision and . . . abandon it.

That is what she argued.

On the environment, Kuhl represented a large oil company that wanted to avoid cleaning up polluted land.

Is that an American value, to stand on the side of a polluter and say let the people take care of it if an oil company polluted their land? I say it is outside the mainstream on the environment.

Legal intimidation--and this is very serious:

Kuhl ruled against an individual subjected to intimidation

and legal costs as a result of speaking out against Medicare

and insurance fraud. In unanimously overturning Judge Kuhl's

decision--

Unanimously overturning Judge Kuhl's decision--how far out of the mainstream can you be when a court that is dominated by Republicans overturns you unanimously?--

the California State Court of Appeals found her ruling

``would prolong both the [individual] defendant's predicament

and the [corporate] plaintiff's outrageous behavior.

Outside the mainstream on tobacco.

Kuhl was part of a team representing a tobacco company in

its effort to manipulate public policy.

That was the case State of Minnesota et al v. Philip Morris et al. On the wrong side, out of the mainstream.

She was out of the mainstream on exposing corporate fraud. Kuhl challenged the ability of whistleblowers to expose fraud against the Government.

Imagine, instead of taking the side of the whistleblowers--and who are whistleblowers? People who are willing to come out and tell the truth. She challenged the ability of whistleblowers to expose fraud against the Government. The case was United States ex rel Jason R. Madden v. General Dynamics Corporation.

She also misrepresented the U.S. Government's position on the constitutionality of the Federal whistleblower law in United States ex rel Rohan v. Newert, in 1993.

Outside the mainstream on rights for the disabled. She argued airline carriers do not have to abide by antidiscrimination statutes relating to the disabled.

Do you know whom she took on in this case? The Paralyzed Veterans of America.

It is hard for me to believe this record. It is hard for me to believe you are going to have to vote to move this nomination along. Why do we have all these groups very upset? Because they understand what her record has been. Fighting on the side against paralyzed veterans--it is unbelievable. Let me just say we will have a little more debate on this tomorrow, but I want my colleagues to understand that the way this nomination came to this Senate was just plain wrong. It went against Senator Hatch's own rules that he laid down when President Clinton was President. He said you had to have both Senators sending back their slips to allow this to go forward. Senator Hatch has changed that rule now that we have a different president.

Then, when we had two Senators against this nomination--we never expected it would be here--when I spoke to the President's men, they said:

``Give us some ideas of some mainstream people you might support. I was happy to do it. I sent them a list of wonderful people.

As a matter of fact, one of the people I recommended is known to the Senator from Oregon. One of the people I recommended for this position was known to the Presiding Officer.

Instead of reaching out to the Senators from California and coming in with a consensus nominee, for whatever reason the President chose to continue with this nomination. I can tell you, in all my years, I have never seen such an outcry from the people of this country.

I will close. A letter was sent to Senator Feinstein on May 6, 2003, by Shirley Hufstedler, a former Ninth Circuit judge, and the first U.S. Secretary of Education. She said:

I do not question Judge Kuhl's skill as a highly trained

lawyer. I am troubled by her lack of candor before her Senate

hearing and by her apparent insensitivity to the impact her

rulings have on some of the people who have come before her

as a judge.

That is an important point about which I didn't tell you. There were a number of statements Judge Kuhl made before the committee that, when asked in further detail after the hearing, she had to correct and clarify what she had said to the members of the Judiciary Committee. She said, Oh, I made a mistake. I was wrong. I didn't exactly say it right.

So whether you look at her performance before the Judiciary Committee, her actions within the Department of Justice during the Ronald Reagan years, her actions as a private lawyer, or her actions as a California judge, it all adds up to outside the mainstream, way outside the mainstream. And it goes against what I believed President Bush made as a commitment to the American people--that he would govern from the center.

I have voted for many judges here, probably 90 percent, maybe high 80s. Many were judges I did not agree with, who were conservative, who would not view the world as I view it. It is very rare--very rare--that I have taken to the floor to make this point. I do not do it lightly.

This is not a personal attack. I have met Carolyn Kuhl. She is delightful to talk to. But this is not about personalities and it is not about gender and it certainly is not about religion. It is about whether or not the advice and consent of the Senate was really sought in this. It is about how Senators were disregarded, the home State Senators who wanted to cooperate, who put forward names, and it is about her lifetime of fighting for everything that is outside the mainstream of America.

I do not think, after that decision on the breast cancer victim, and that alone, that someone who would be that insensitive to say to someone who was fighting breast cancer that you have to come in and you have to ask your doctor who is in the room with you, that it is your job--that kind of decision fails the test of compassion, sensitivity and, above all, the law. She was wrong on the law. She was overturned on the law.

For all those reasons, I beg my colleagues to stop this nomination from going forward. Let's get another nominee, a Republican nominee, I am sure--which President Bush has every right to do--but one who comes from the mainstream, with mainstream values and mainstream life.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

We didn't.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from California, Senator Boxer, for the statement she just made. For some, it is not easy to stand up on the floor of the Senate and oppose the nomination of a judge nominated by the President of the United States. For others, it is not quite as difficult. But for the Senator from California, I admire her for the clarity of her thinking and the position she has taken because, frankly, I agree with it.

All of us in this body took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The main framework of that Constitution is the separation of powers with its powers allocated equally among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. When our Founding Fathers wrote that Constitution, they were unsure about what to do about judges. They debated. One of their proposals was that the Congress send the names of potential judges to the President and that the President choose from among those judges which one the President wanted, and that is the one that would be named. It was a very difficult issue to resolve. Why? Because the two branches of government would be deciding which people would have lifetime appointments serving in the third branch of Government; that is, the judicial branch.

Why is this so important? It is so important because judges must be impartial, and they must be fair. They have a very difficult job of trying to interpret laws and interpreting the Constitution. We as Americans feel much safer and we feel much better the more we know that the judges in the district courts, the courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court are people of the highest caliber.

Let me tell you that one of the greatest privileges I believe we have as Members of the Senate is to recommend the names of potential judicial nominees to the President of the United States. I have been able to do that several times. It is very much a privilege to me personally. In the exercise of that privilege, this is the process I followed. I think it is one that honors the position of the judge in either district court or the United States Courts of Appeals.

I asked in each instance seven or eight people in my State of Montana--Republicans, Democrats, it didn't make any difference, some lawyers, some law professors, businesspeople, people who I respected as some of the best and smartest and most able in my State--to come up with three names, one for the district court and one for the circuit courts of appeal. I asked them to give me the three very best people in my State. I don't care whether they are Republicans, Democrats, whether they are known as conservatives, whether they are known as liberals, just give me the best. And they did. I sat down with each of the three and interviewed each of the three for several hours.

I can tell you it was a very difficult decision because they are tremendous people.

Finally, I decided after a lot of thinking about all of this to recommend to President Clinton the name of Don Malloy. Thankfully, he nominated Don Malloy to the Federal District Court in the State of Montana. He is a terrific Federal judge.

Why do I say terrific? I say terrific because both the plaintiffs bar and the defense bar think he is just super. He is tough, he is fair, he runs that court well, and he works very hard. Both plaintiffs and defense attorneys think he is very fair and a very good judge. That says a lot to me.

I did the same in the other case. When we had the opportunity to recommend to President Clinton the nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, it was the same process. I asked for the best. I didn't care whether they were Republicans or Democrats. It didn't make any difference. Who were the best? The group I selected came back with three people--all just terrific people. You would be very proud of all of them, Mr. President.

Again, I had a hard time deciding which one was the best. But I made a decision. That person now serves on the Ninth Circuit. His name is Syd Thomas. He has the reputation of being one of the best judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

It is very important that we get the best judges. These are people who are nominated and serve for life. That is extremely important. It is important so they can maintain their independence. It is also important since once they are confirmed, they are there forever.

We self-destruct. As Senators we self-destruct every 6 years. House Members self-destruct every 2 years--some Governors 4 years and some 2--to go back and face the people, as we should go back and face reelection. Should we be continued in these offices, if we seek them, or not? It causes us to be very close to the people. In some cases, we are more attuned to the political currents that flow in our respective States. Not so judges. Judges are not to be attuned to political currents. They are to be independent, to be impartial, to go beyond politics, to do what is right according to what the law says

and what the Constitution says. That is who we want.

This is no light matter. One of the strengths of America is our independent judiciary. That is not true in most other countries. Most peoples in the world live where the continent might be under a system where the judiciary is not independent of the executive branch, not independent of the legislative branch; rather, it is under the thumb of one or the other. They are not independent.

That is one reason why this country has grown so strongly, why it has prevailed, and why we have risen so quickly and so far. It is because we have an independent judiciary, by and large, of judges who are extremely capable men and women. It engenders confidence so when people go before a judge they have the feeling this person can be fair and this person can be honest. They may not like the outcome, but at least it is a fair process. At least the President or the Governor didn't put his thumb on this judge and it wasn't a political decision. It was a decision a person made on the merits.

I say this because we as Members of the Senate have a higher obligation in passing upon judges than we do of other nominations-- certainly of other executive branch nominations. When the President nominates somebody to be Treasury Secretary or somebody to be Secretary of State, or someone to be Defense Secretary, those are important jobs, very important. But they are executive branch nominations, and they are people who will be working for the President, and by and large the President should have people with whom he can work. We should, in my judgment, not have quite the same standard for executive nominations as we do for judicial nominations.

For judicial nominations, the standards should be of the highest. What should they be, roughly? They should be people who have the highest integrity and honesty. They should be people who are extremely competent, who know the law, and people who basically don't have an ax to grind or an ideological ax to grind; that is, they are basically in the mainstream. America is a mainstream country. We are not a country, hopefully, of ideologues, of people who have axes to grind, of people who want to work with each other and who live with each other. We should have judges who reflect America and in fact set the highest standards for America.

In my opinion, it is not even a close question. It doesn't even begin to be a close question. Some of the nominees before the Senate do not rise to those standards. They don't begin to. Some do. Most do. But some don't. Where they don't, we in a sense should also forget the politics and just do what is right. Is this nominee a person so qualified that he or she should be a district court judge or a judge on one of the courts of appeal? That should be the test.

It is easy for us to decide what is best and what is not best. We should not push pell-mell to follow the political flood and rush on either side of the aisle just because the President appointed the person, or because a group came out against their nominee we should or should not confirm that person.

This is a high solemn obligation we have, Mr. President. I urge all of us to take this responsibility under the Constitution, the Constitution which we all swore to uphold, very carefully.

Mr. President, turning to another matter, I would like to speak about an amendment I intended to offer today on the Energy bill that I think promotes a good commonsense solution to an issue that I think is very important to my constituents in Montana, and that is, protecting Montana's magnificent Rocky Mountain Front.

What is the Front? The Front, as we call it back home, is one of the largest and most intact wild places left in the lower 48 States. We call it the Front because that is kind of what it is; it is a front. Anyone driving across the State of Montana, driving westward, first encounters open plains and prairies; and then, suddenly, out in the distance, the Rocky Mountains, the Continental Divide just seems to jump out of the plains--this huge mountain range--and that is what we call the Eastern Front.

That is the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains which kind of juts out from the plains. It is magnificent. It is one of the largest and most intact wild places left in the lower 48 States.

This map I have is not a good map to show the beauty of it. But, rather, this is a map that shows where the Front is with respect to the Blackfoot Indian Reservation, the oil and gas leases, and some of the wilderness areas there. But to the north of the Front is an area here. This is the Blackfoot Indian Reservation. Glacier National Park is over to the northwest on this map. The area shaded in red is called Badger- Two Medicine. It is call Badger-Two Medicine in large respect because the Blackfoot Indian Reservation has ancestral rights and claims. It is a very special area to the Blackfoot. It is also a gorgeous area. I have hiked it many times. I think it is a very special place in the United States of America. This is sacred ground, Badger-Two. It is the area on the map that is shaded red located next to Glacier Park.

In January 2002, portions of the Badger-Two area, known as the Badger-Two Medicine Blackfoot Traditional Cultural District, were declared eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

If you turn just south of the Badger-Two, the Front includes about a 400-square-mile strip of national forest land and about 20 square miles of BLM lands. The BLM lands are scattered in through here, as shown on this map. These include three BLM Outstanding Natural Areas. As I mentioned, they are located right through this area shown here.

Now, the Front harbors the country's largest bighorn sheep herd--the country's largest--and the second largest elk herd in the entire country. That is on the Front.

The Rocky Mountain Front supports one of the largest populations of grizzly bears south of Canada and is the only place in the lower 48 States where grizzlies still roam from the mountains to their historic range on the plains, just as they did when Lewis and Clark came across. Actually, they crossed right up through here. Marias Passway is over here. So Lewis and Clark, when they came up, saw that area. Actually, they came the south. One of the groups came across Marias Pass.

Because of this exceptional habitat, the Front offers unsurpassed hunting, fishing, and recreational opportunities. Sportsmen, local landowners, local elected officials, hikers, local communities, and many other Montanans have worked for decades to protect and preserve the Front for future generations for nearly a century.

Now let me show you a couple of pictures of the Front so you get a sense of the feel for this magnificent landscape. This is a photograph of Ear Mountain. It is supposed to be shaped like an ear. If you have a good imagination, maybe you can see the ear. Frankly, a couple summers ago, I hiked up to the top of the ear with a good friend, Rick Graetz, and another friend, Jim Scott, and Jamie Williams, and it was just a gorgeous climb.

When you get to the top of the Ear--this picture, of course, was taken a little more in the wintertime, but at the top of the Ear, if you look east, you can see forever. It is wonderful.

We feel very strongly about the Front. The majority of Montanans believe very strongly, frankly, that oil and gas leases on the Front and throughout Montana's Rocky Mountain Range just don't mix. We think that because the habitat is too rich, the landscape too important to subject it to the roads and the drills and the pipelines and the industrial equipment and the chemicals and noise and human activity that come with oil and gas development.

Let me show you a couple for photos of the Front before I proceed.

This is typical--and I mean typical. I am not exaggerating. This is what Montana looks like. It is what the eastern Front looks like. It is gorgeous.

Here is another picture. This gives you a sense of the pristine nature of the area. It is special. We are known as the Big Sky State. And when you are out here, you can understand why we call Montana the Big Sky State.

Those are some of the photographs.

To give my colleagues some idea of what the area might look like if oil and gas were developed, I show you a picture of extensive oil and gas development along the Canadian Rocky Mountain Front in Alberta.

This is the Front. If you were to continue from Montana up north, this is what it would look like--with the roads and the development of the oil and gas leases.

So we believe such development is not warranted and it is not needed in Montana.

The administration recently completed an inventory of onshore oil and gas reserves on Federal lands at five basins in the interior West, including the Rocky Mountain Front, which is part of the Montana overthrust belt. The administration's study found that the overthrust belt area contains the smallest volumes of potential oil and gas resources of all five of the western inventory areas.

In addition, the administration's study concluded that in reality the vast majority of Federal lands in the interior West are available for leasing with few, if any, restrictions; that is, there are not many restrictions in the vast majority of the Federal lands of the interior West. And that is, we are not talking about the Front, we are talking the interior of the United States.

Although a large percentage of Federal lands in the Front are currently unavailable for leasing, many of those lands are unavailable in the Front because they lie under Glacier National Park, they lie under Indian lands, and already established wilderness areas. These areas comprise much of the Federal land in the Front.

As shown on the map, here is the Scapegoat Wilderness Area, Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, Great Bear Wilderness Area, Glacier National Park, Badger-Two, and the Blackfoot. So much of this is already restricted. So not only is the Front relatively poor in terms of oil and gas reserves, many of those reserves, by congressional mandate, Executive order or treaty, will never be available for leasing. So there is no oil or gas bonanza on the Rocky Mountain Front.

My amendment builds upon local conservation efforts in Montana that started nearly a century ago; that is, back in 1913. It also builds on previous congressional initiatives championed by former Members of the Montana congressional delegation, such as Congressman Pat Williams and the late Senator Lee Metcalf.

I ask unanimous consent that a time-line of these efforts be printed in the Record.

Most recently, in 1997, following significant public and private investment and an extensive public comment process, the Lewis and Clark National Forest decided to withdraw 356,000 acres in the Front of any new oil and gas leasing. This was a significant first step in protecting the Front from development, and I wholeheartedly supported it.

However, in many parts of the Rocky Mountain Front, oil and gas leases do exist, and they predate that 1997 decision, or they are located on BLM lands.

Many of the leases that predate the 1997 decision are located in the Badger-Two Medicine area. That is shown up here on the map, close to the Blackfoot Reservation. And that has been under an administrative lease suspension since 1996, pending review of the Blackfoot Traditional Cultural District.

This lease suspension could be lifted at any time now that the Blackfoot Traditional Cultural District has been declared eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

All of these existing leaseholders have invested time and resources in acquiring their leases. I understand that and am sympathetic. Several leaseholders have applied to the Federal Government for permits to drill.

In fact, the BLM and the United States Forest Service plan to begin analysis of about four leases in the Blackleaf Area of the front this fall.

These leases are subject of the study proposed in my bill.

However, history has shown that energy exploration and development in the front are likely to result in expensive and time-consuming environmental studies and litigation. It will take forever. This process rarely ends with a solution that is satisfactory to the oil and gas lessee. There are so many interests involved.

For example, in the late 1980's both Chevron and Fina applied for permits to drill in the Badger Two Medicine portion of the Front. After millions of dollars spent on studies and years of public debate, Chevron abandoned or assigned all of its lease rights, and Fina sold its lease rights back to the original owner. It was not worth it.

We should obviously be fair to those leaseholders. We want them to continue to provide for our domestic oil and gas needs, and we want to encourage them to find new domestic supplies. But they are going to have a long, difficult and expensive road if they wish to develop oil and gas in the Rocky Mountain Front.

My legislation would direct the Interior Department to evaluate for study, non-producing leases in the Rocky Mountain front and look at opportunities to cancel those leases in exchange for allowing leaseholders to explore for oil and gas somewhere else, namely in the Gulf of Mexico or in the State of Montana. In conducting this evaluation, the Secretary would have to consult with leaseholders with the State of Montana, the public and other interested parties.

When Interior concludes this study in 2 years the bill calls for the agency to make recommendations to Congress and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the advisability of pursuing lease exchanges in the front and any changes in law and regulation needed to enable the Secretary to undertake such an exchange.

Finally, Mr. President, my bill would continue the current lease suspension in the Badger-Two Medicine Area for three more years. This lease suspension would only apply to the Badger-Two Medicine Area, not the entire front.

This suspension will do two things: First, it will give the Secretary adequate time to conduct this study and

make recommendations to Congress; second, it will give the Blackfeet Tribe some breathing room to negotiate with the Interior Department about the long-term protection of Blackfeet historic and sacred sites in the Badger-Two Medicine area.

That's it. That is all my amendment would do. It doesn't predetermine any outcome. It doesn't impact any existing exploration activities or environmental review processes.

It just creates a process through which the Federal Government, the people of Montana and leaseholders can finally have a real, open and honest discussion about the best way to resolve the status of oil and gas leases along the Rocky Mountain front. My amendment is balanced and fair to all parties.

We look for ways to fairly compensate leaseholders for investments they've made in their leases if they decide to leave the front rather than waste years and millions fighting to explore for uncertain--and small--oil and gas reserves. And, a lot of Montanans, including me, just don't want to see the front developed, and they will fight to protect it.

Here is the alternative: So, developers can wait years, or decades, or most likely never, for oil and gas to flow from the front.

Or we can look at ways to encourage domestic production much sooner, in much more cost effective, appropriate and efficient ways somewhere else.

Let me quote from an editorial in the Missoulian, a Montana paper based in Missoula, MT, that emphasizes what I hope my bill will accomplish. They said:

One of the things we ought to do, as part of setting our

national energy policy, is quit squandering our own energy

fighting the same old battles that will never yield a single

BTU. Montana's Rocky Mountain Front has for too long been a

battlefield for just that sort of energy-sapping conflict. .

. There are no known reserves of oil and gas in there--just

speculation that it might, based on the fact that similar

geology north of the Canadian border has proved productive.

That editorial concluded by stating that my amendment ``acknowledges the property rights of lessees, but also the reality that they likely will be stymied indefinitely in any attempt to drill along the front. This is a proposal that protects a place Montanans so clearly desire to preserve. And it offers an opportunity to focus public and private- sector energies on actually producing useful energy.''

Montanans have spoken loudly and forcefully on this issue. We don't want any drilling in the front.

Montana is a natural resource-rich State and we are proud of our natural resource heritage. Montana has made, and continues to make, tremendous contributions to this Nation's economy through the development of its precious metals like copper, platinum, palladium and gold, through development of its coal, its oil and gas, its timber, and other natural resources. We will continue to do so because that's the right thing to do for Montana's economy and the Nation.

But the front is special to Montanans. Because we're also proud of our outdoor heritage, of preserving special places to take our kids hunting and fishing and hiking, just like we did when we were kids. We balance these two Montana priorities all the time. In this case, Montanans determined that the resources that might be under the front just don't justify endangering the front's unparalleled landscape.

That's why this amendment is so important, so we can strike the right balance in Montana on the Rocky Mountain Front. Let's listen to the locals.

I ask my colleagues for their support.

No, go ahead.

Chile-Singapore Free-Trade Agreements

Mr. President, would I be in order to speak on the Chile and Singapore free-trade agreements?

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of these two trade bills.

The Chile and Singapore trade agreements are state-of-the-art agreements that will provide real economic and strategic benefits to America's workers, farmers, consumers and industry.

S. 1416, the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, implements into law our first bilateral free trade agreement with a South American country. And I think it is appropriate that Chile be one of the first.

Chile's open economy is a model for much of Latin America. Because of its free market philosophy, Chile is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Over the past decade it has established itself not only as a strong democracy, but also as a leading advocate of free trade.

Chile already has trade agreements with sixteen other countries, including Mexico, Canada, Mercosur, and the European Union. As a result, its trade with these economies has grown while the U.S. share of Chilean imports has dropped over 30 percent between 1998 and 2002. Years of delay in reaching a free trade agreement with Chile has reportedly cost U.S. companies over $1 billion in lost export potential. Clearly, it is time for us to get back in the game.

I also want to note how pleased I am about the strong agriculture market access provisions found in the U.S.-Chile FTA. More than three- quarters of U.S. farm goods exported to Chile will be duty free within 4 years of the agreement's implementation. Immediate elimination of tariffs on U.S.

products will provide up-front gains to U.S. exporters and, importantly, will level the playing field for our farmers, ranchers and workers as they compete with products from the EU and Canada. These provisions are complemented by the removal of unnecessary sanitary and phytosanitary barriers to U.S. agriculture exports.

But this agreement doesn't just benefit U.S. agriculture. It also provides groundbreaking market access across the board. The agreement will immediately eliminate tariffs on more than 85 percent of all U.S. goods, with most of the remaining tariffs eliminated within four years.

The U.S.-Chile FTA also opens new opportunities for U.S. banks, insurance, and telecommunications services. It provides new protections for U.S. investors and high levels of intellectual property rights protection. The U.S.-Chile FTA can also strengthen momentum in the ongoing negotiations to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas. In short, the agreement vastly enhances our economic opportunities in a growing and important region of the world.

S. 1417, the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, implements into law our first free-trade agreement with an Asian Pacific nation. Singapore is our largest trading partner in Southeast Asia and our twelfth largest in the world. Singapore is also a strong ally in the war against terrorism.

The U.S.-Singapore FTA is good for America. It opens up new markets and creates new opportunities for many sectors of our economy.

This FTA will guarantee fair and non-discriminatory treatment for U.S. services firms. This benefits our service industries, such as banking, insurance and the telecommunication industries.

The agreement also includes state-of-the-art provisions on e- commerce, transparency and competition, and strong intellectual property rights protection. This agreement continues our goal toward greater trade liberalization and higher standards, not only in the Pacific, but throughout the world.

Both agreements we are discussing today are the first to be considered under Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA, procedures. This is the first time in our history that the Senate has approved two free trade agreements in a single day. The fact that we were able to achieve this goal is a testament not only to the high quality of these agreements, but also to the power of Trade Promotion Authority.

It was almost a year ago today that the House and Senate gave final approval to the conference report for the Trade Act of 2002. This historic piece of legislation empowered the President, for the first time in almost a decade, to negotiate free trade agreements utilizing Trade Promotion Authority procedures. Today, with the passage of these two agreements, we are using TPA to take some of our first steps toward reengaging the world through international trade. It is a welcome development.

A fundamental part of TPA procedures is consultations. The TPA act requires that the Administration consult closely with Congress throughout the negotiating process. I know the Bush administration took these consultation requirements to heart. A number of modifications to the agreements and to the implementing legislation were adopted as a result of these procedures. That is the way the process is supposed to work--a partnership between the Congressional and executive branch to craft the best trade agreements for the American people.

Like any partnership, the more you put into it, the more you get out of it. I am disappointed that some of my colleagues who did not engage on these agreements early in the process are now complaining about some of the provisions they contain. I hope we can avoid similar problems as we work on future agreements.

Without Trade Promotion Authority, the United States fell behind on trade. But now we are back on track. The goal of TPA is to knock down barriers to trade and allow U.S. companies to compete on a level playing field around the world. These two agreements achieve that goal and more. I strongly urge my colleagues to join with me today and vote to approve these two solid agreements.

Mr. President, at this time I wish to highlight a number of the ways in which we stand to benefit from the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement and the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. I have spoken previously on how our farmers will benefit from improved market access for our agricultural exports as a result of these agreements. I want to elaborate on the benefits to agriculture, particularly with respect to sanitary and phytosanitary measures. I also want to take a moment to focus on some of the other benefits of these agreements, specifically the benefits of the telecommunications, services, and intellectual property provisions in the agreements, as well as the benefits for U.S. exporters of manufactured goods. Finally, I want to clarify how the short supply mechanisms for textiles will operate in these agreements.

With respect to agriculture, the agreement with Singapore commits Singapore to maintain its current open market for the importation of farm products from the United States, while the Agreement with Chile removes numerous barriers that previously limited U.S. exports of agricultural goods to that country. Chilean tariffs on 75 percent of U.S. agricultural products will go to zero within four years. These products include soybeans, corn, pork, and beef, all of which are major Iowa commodities.

Chile is committed to removing its price band on edible vegetable oils, wheat, wheat flour, and sugar under the FTA. Chile used its price band mechanism to protect its domestic producers of these products by keeping domestic prices within a predetermined range through the use of additional duties. As recently as 2000, this price band caused effective tariffs on wheat imported into Chile to rise as high as 90 percent. With the implementation of the agreement, Chile will eliminate its price band mechanism with respect to U.S. exports over a 12 year period.

U.S. agriculture will benefit in yet other ways under the Chile agreement. For example, up until now, the failure of Chile to recognize U.S. beef grading programs effectively blocked U.S. beef in consumer cuts from entering the Chilean market. This situation will change with the implementation of the agreement, as Chile is committed to recognize the equivalency of U.S. beef grading programs.

As a result of talks held in conjunction with negotiations of the free-trade agreement, Chile agreed to remove various non-science based barriers to imports of U.S. agricultural products. Of particular interest to Iowa's hog and cattle producers, Chile agreed to recognize the equivalency of the U.S. meat inspection system. Prior to this decision, Chile prohibited the importation of pork, beef, and lamb from U.S. facilities unless those facilities paid for Chilean inspectors to travel to the United States to inspect and certify them. Given the costs involved with this process, few U.S. plants were eligible to export meat to Chile.

With Chile's new meat inspection equivalency policy, and with duties going to zero under the agreement, barriers to the entry of U.S. pork, beef, and lamb into Chile will be removed. Following further review of its sanitary and phytosanitary, SPS, measures in conjunction with talks with the United States, Chile also agreed to permit the importation of grapefruit from Florida and cherries and stonefruit from California.

Achieving the removal of unjustified SPS measures through talks with Chile demonstrates that enhancing our trade relations with other countries can indeed provide the impetus for our trading partners to remove non-science based barriers to imports of U.S. agricultural products. Our experience with Chile creates an important precedent for other trade agreements the United States is negotiating, such as the Australia FTA, the Central America FTA, and the Free Trade Area of the Americas. The fact is, without the removal of scientifically unfounded barriers to trade, duty-free treatment under future trade agreements will mean little. I'm pleased that talks with Chile led to the lifting of these unjustified SPS measures.

With respect to telecommunications, these agreements introduce an important new concept on flexibility of choice and technology neutrality. Under Article 13.14 of the agreement

with Chile, and Article 9.13 of the agreement with Singapore, Chile and Singapore will endeavor to not prevent suppliers of public telecommunications services from having the flexibility to choose the technologies that they use to supply their services, including commercial mobile wireless services. This technology neutral approach to the regulation of commercial wireless mobile services is consistent with the practices of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, FCC, which neither promote nor impede the use of particular wireless technologies in the U.S. market.

These provisions constitute an important first step. They introduce a key regulatory concept into free trade negotiations that can help to enhance competition and consumer choice. These provisions can also create export opportunities for U.S. manufacturers of communications equipment and thereby preserve U.S. jobs that depend on trade in technology products.

However, I view these provisions as only a first step because they are non-binding commitments. As such, they should be viewed as a floor, and not a ceiling, on standards for future free trade agreements. Going forward, we should strive to negotiate binding and enforceable commitments in our free trade agreements, to ensure that suppliers of commercial mobile wireless communications services are not prevented by governmental action from using the technology of their choosing to provide such services. Only then will we guarantee that U.S. technology suppliers enjoy market opportunities and benefits similar to those that foreign suppliers receive in the U.S. market.

Services are another critical component of our economy. Services now account for 65 percent of the U.S. economy, and 28 percent of the value of our exports. With respect to services, the agreements establish an important precedent by adopting a comprehensive ``negative list'' approach, whereby any exception to the liberalization obligations contained in the agreements must be specified. This broad approach is preferable to that contained in the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services GATS, whereby countries specify their commitments rather than exceptions. The negative list approach means more obligations for Chile and Singapore to liberalize their services exports and more jobs right here in the United States. The agreements also broaden commitments, so that they apply to government-owned or government-controlled enterprises.

With respect to intellectual property protection, these agreements generally set out among the highest standards of protection and enforcement for copyrights and other intellectual property yet to be achieved in a bilateral or multilateral trade agreement. These protections will permit the growth of trade in digital technologies and products while still protecting the legitimate rights of copyright owners. Strong enforcement provisions require the application of criminal procedures and penalties in cases of trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale, and both Chile and Singapore commit to seize, forfeit, and destroy counterfeit and pirated goods and the equipment used to produce them. These protections will apply to goods-in-transit and mandate both statutory and actual damages under Chilean and Singaporean law for intellectual property rights violations.

The agreements also incorporate a principle of ``first in time, first in right'' to trademarks, whereby the first to file for a trademark is granted the exclusive right to that name, phrase, or geographical place name. This approach creates an important precedent that we should seek to replicate regionally and globally, particularly in the face of efforts by the European Union to unduly expand protections for geographical indications in the WTO.

With respect to manufactured goods, Chile's commitment to eliminate tariffs immediately on 85 percent of U.S. exports, including such key sectors as computers and other information technology products, provides immediate benefits to U.S. manufacturers. By entering into this agreement, Chile will embrace the duty reduction commitments reflected in the 1996 Information Technology Agreement. These commitments can create new export opportunities for our manufacturers, which is critical in this period of increasing unemployment.

The National Association of Manufacturers has estimated that the absence of a free trade agreement with Chile has cost us about 20,000 job opportunities annually, and over $1 billion dollars in export potential. Well, that's about to change with the implementation of this agreement. And that is just the start. We need to aggressively pursue additional free trade agreements that will expand market access opportunities for our farmers and our manufacturers, to help add jobs to our economy and reverse the current trend in unemployment.

Finally, I note that the Finance Committee has received inquiries regarding the textile commercial availability provisions in the Chile and Singapore Agreements. I asked the Office of the United States Trade Representative to clarify the operation of the short supply provisions in these agreements, and I want to share that clarification today.

All products designated as not commerically available prior to November 2002 under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA, and Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act, CBTPA, preference programs would be deemed as not commercially available under the Singapore agreement. The Chile agreement does not incorporate such a provision. In the future, for both the Chile and Singapore agreements, to designate an item as not commerically available would require consultations under the provisions for revision of the rules of origin contained in each agreement. These provisions require the parties to consult, upon request, to consider whether particular goods should be subject to different rules of origin to address issues of availability of the supply for fibers, yarns, or fabrics in the free trade area, and require the parties to endeavor to conclude their consultations within 60 days. I hope that this clarification proves helpful.

In sum, I strongly support the Chile and Singapore free-trade agreements. I support them because they open markets for U.S. exports of agricultural products and manufactured goods. I support them because they open markets for U.S. exports of a wide array of services. I support them because they will create opportunities for job growth here in the United States. I support them because they enhance protections for intellectual property rights holders here in the United States. And I support them because they establish important precedents for future negotiations. For these reasons, I urge each of my colleagues to support the implementing bills before us today.

Mr. President, I rise to address the benefits to U.S. agriculture from the United States-Chile Free-Trade Agreement. U.S. agriculture needs trade agreements to expand sales and farm incomes. Since 96 percent of the world's population resides outside the United States, access to foreign markets is essential for the continued growth and viability of U.S. agriculture. Bilateral agreements such as the Chile FTA are essential because they provide strong benefits to U.S. farmers.

This agreement will provide America's farmers and ranchers new access to Chile's market of 15 million consumers. This agreement is comprehensive, calling for eventual duty-free, quota-free access for all products.

On tariffs, more than three-quarters of U.S. farm goods exported to Chile will be duty free within 4 years of the agreement's implementation. Let me just name some of the specific U.S. products that will benefit. Under the FTA, Chile will provide immediate duty- free access for soybeans and pork, two major Iowa products. Chile will also immediately eliminate its tariffs on U.S. apples, pears, cherries, breakfast cereals, pasta, and bread. Corn grown in Iowa and other States will receive duty-free treatment in 2 years. The agreement provides for duty-free access for beef offal immediately, and for all U.S. beef products within 4 years.

Under the FTA, Chile commits to recognize U.S. beef grading programs. I should note as well that, through talks held in conjunction with the FTA negotiations, Chile agreed to recognize the equivalency of the U.S. meat inspection system. Chile's recognition of the equivalency of U.S. meat inspections

and U.S. beef grading should greatly facilitate the export of U.S. pork and beef to Chile.

Chile's price band mechanism has been a major concern to many U.S. agricultural exporters. Well, under this agreement Chile will not only allow U.S. exports of durum wheat and pasta to enter duty free, but will also eliminate its price band mechanism for common wheat and flour in 12 years. This will open Chile's market to U.S. exporters for wheat and wheat flour.

American agriculture recognizes a good deal when it sees one. Let me read an excerpt from a July 9 letter from 32 agriculture organizations:

Mr. Majority Leader, the undersigned organizations urge

your support and vote for the Free Trade Agreement with

Chile. The U.S.-Chile FTA, provides new market opportunities

for U.S. agriculture products and resolution to outstanding

trade concerns that U.S. producers have experienced with

Chile.

And the letter is signed by such groups as the American Farm Bureau, the American Soybean Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Pork Producers Council, and many, many others.

This is a strong agreement for American agriculture. It sets a new standard for what we can achieve for American agriculture in a free- trade agreement. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for American agriculture and support this strong trade agreement.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as I understand it, the Presiding Officer would like to deliver his remarks. I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to speak and then I be permitted to speak.

I asked that the Senator from Texas, who is now presiding, be able to speak and then that I may speak immediately thereafter.

Not very long.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time of the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, be yielded back.

I ask unanimous consent that immediately following my remarks on these two speeches, that Senator Max Baucus from Montana be permitted to speak.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of legislation implementing the free-trade agreements that have been negotiated between the United States and Chile, S. 1416, and between the United States and Singapore, S. 1417. I appreciated the remarks of my colleague who is the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have great admiration for him, and I believe he has given an appropriate warning to the Trade Representative and the administration with regard to some of the criticisms that have been lodged against these agreements.

Let me begin by commending the Bush administration for negotiating these agreements with Chile and Singapore. Both Chile and Singapore are countries that represent economic stability and growth in their respective region of the world. These trade agreements will provide new market access for American workers and products including agricultural, manufactured products, telecommunications equipment and other high- technology products.

Let me also commend Senators Grassley and Baucus for bringing these agreements through the Finance Committee in the same bipartisan fashion that has characterized all of the recent congressional actions with respect to international trade. I am pleased to work with them on trade matters in the Finance Committee.

As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I note that both of these agreements contain chapters on matters of great importance to our Committee. These include: intellectual property; antitrust; e-commerce; telecommunications; and, last and certainly not least, immigration. In many ways, the substance of the negotiations on matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee focused on ways to encourage our trading partners to harmonize their law with current U.S. standards. We should take pride in this dynamic.

Let me turn first to S. 1416, the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement. Despite its status as a relatively new democracy, Chile is regarded by many to be a model for the successful implementation of market-oriented economic reform measures since its first democratic elections in 1989. Although we have seen a slight trade deficit emerge in our trade with Chile over the past few years, I believe a free trade agreement between our countries is likely to stimulate growth in both economies.

The United States-Chile FTA will provide new market opportunities for United States workers and businesses. American companies currently operate at a competitive disadvantage in terms of trade with Chile, because many key foreign competitors, such as Canada, Mexico and the European Union already have executed free trade agreements with Chile. In fact, the National Association of Manufacturers estimates that without an FTA with Chile, U.S. exporters lose roughly $800 million per year in sales, which affects approximately 10,000 American jobs. With the adoption of the Chilean agreement, America would see an immediate elimination of tariffs on more than 85 percent of consumer and industrial goods. This will help eliminate the current trade deficit and will provide for increased export opportunities for U.S. companies.

Some estimates place the potential annual economic benefits of the United States--Chilean Free Trade Agreement at an impressive $4.2 billion annual increase in the U.S. gross domestic product and a $700 million increase in the Chilean GDP.

The Chilean FTA will provide numerous economic opportunities for my State of Utah, which is important to me. Currently, Utahns export approximately $657 million worth of consumer

goods to Chile every year. The major sectors of Utah's economy that will benefit most from a Chile FTA are manufacturers of computer machinery and components, high-tech computer software developers, manufacturers of medical devices, and dietary supplement companies.

Tariff-free trade with Chile will also result in expanded markets for America's farmers and ranchers, with more than 75 percent of U.S. farm goods becoming tariff-free within 4 years after enactment of the agreement. The agreement would also provide greater access for U.S.- based financial service companies to operate in the Chilean financial markets. This will result in new growth opportunities for U.S. banks, insurance companies, securities firms, and telecommunications companies.

Before entering into trade negotiations with the United States, Chile was required to adopt all provisions required for membership in the World Trade Organization. This includes the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Provisions, the so-called ``TRIPS'' provisions. The TRIPS provisions protect U.S. patent, copyright, and trademark owners.

The United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement is a very important step in building stronger political and economic ties, not only with Chile, but with all of South America. As I see it, Chile is a strategic ally in South America. Chile provides a strong economic and political base in a region of the world that is currently experiencing extreme economic hardships. The adoption of the Chile FTA is an important first step toward the expansion of hemispheric wide-open trade relations throughout North and South America through the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas.

The United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, S. 1417, would have a similar effect on trade and economic liberalization in Southeast Asia. Like Chile, Singapore is a leader in its region for free trade- oriented reforms. It is very important to note that the United States- Singapore Free Trade Agreement is the first free trade agreement that the United States will have negotiated with an Asian nation.

Singapore is a relatively small nation geographically. It encompasses only 246 square miles and has a population of only four million people. Its economy is robust and highly competitive. It is one of the most open, well-regulated and secure markets for investment in Asia. Approximately 1,300 American firms have a significant presence in Singapore and all indications are that the establishment of an FTA with Singapore will provide additional opportunities for American industries through increased market access.

An FTA with Singapore also provides an opportunity for expansion in Utah's economy. Singapore currently receives almost 6 percent of Utah's international exports, amounting to more than $263 million. The top exports to Singapore from Utah include electronic machinery, plastics, perfumery, cosmetics, and telecommunications services and equipment.

The United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement provides for reciprocal levels of market access, eventually eliminating the few remaining tariffs on American goods and services, and eliminating or reducing all non-tariff barriers to American exports. The Singapore FTA also requires observation of the TRIPS provisions.

The agreement with Singapore will provide opportunities for economic expansion and encourage free trade throughout Southeast Asia. This agreement merits the support of the Senate.

The Senate will soon have a chance to vote for, or against, both of these important free trade agreements. Last year a broad bipartisan group of 66 Senators voted for trade promotion authority. One of the chief reasons for adopting fast track procedures is to prevent trade treaties from death by amendment and procedural delays. Although no amendments are in order under the fast track rules, all Members of the Senate retain their ultimate authority to accept or reject any treaties or implementing legislation that the Administration proposes.

Because the Trade Act of 2002 calls for up or down votes without opportunity for amendment, it is important that Congress be fully consulted. This should occur at each step of the process. I know that this inability to amend the implementing language of these agreements has concerned many members of the Judiciary Committee.

From the perspective of the Judiciary Committee, I can tell my colleagues that the most controversial provisions of these trade agreements are those addressing the temporary entry of professional workers and intra-company transfers. Many members of the Judiciary Committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, have expressed their dismay over the immigration provisions.

Many Senators have unequivocally stated their objections to the manner in which the temporary entry provisions were transmitted to Congress. I share many of their concerns. The administration must consult with Congress, and specifically with the Judiciary Committee, on all matters within our committee's jurisdiction. At our mark-up on this implementing language, many members of the Committee made it plain that individual trade agreements are not the best forums for raising matters of general immigration law and policy. I trust that USTR will heed this message in the future.

To be fair to USTR, I understand that there were six briefings at the staff level prior to the transmission of the final implementing language. In addition, USTR briefed the committee staff on the proposed implementing language before it was finalized. There were also numerous additional informal consultations among committee staff on both sides of the aisle, and between committee staff and USTR and other administration officials over the last few weeks. Most, although not all, members of the Judiciary Committee sent representatives to these meetings.

Finally, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on July 14 to allow the members of the committee to question USTR's principal negotiators on the draft implementing language for thee two agreements.

USTR worked to address the concerns expressed by Judiciary Committee members. Three main issues surfaced: first, time limits on the professional workers' visas; second, numerical limits on such professional workers; and, third protection of American workers. I want to discuss how these matters were resolved in the legislation.

With respect to the concern that there is a lack of a time limit for the professional workers' category, I note that contrary to how some may read the implementing language, the legislation does not allow indefinite stays. While it is true that the professional visa provision in the trade bills does not set a time limit, it does have to be renewed every year and is subject to section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This means that at each renewal, the applicant must show that the stay in the US is temporary and that there is not immigrant intent. In that sense, the safeguard against someone circumventing the permanent residence requirements is arguably greater than the safeguard contained in the traditional H1-B visa, which is expressly exempted from section 214(b).

Withe respect to the numerical cap, I would emphasize that the allocations for Chile and Singapore come under the overall cap for current H1-B visas. Therefore, there is no net increase of foreign workers because of these agreements. Moreover, the annual limits for Chile and Singapore, set at 1,400 and 5,400 respectively, are statutory ceilings. Our Government does not have to allocate the full amount every year.

Some of my colleagues are concerned about the fact that these agreements do not allow labor certification. First of all, I want to clarify that currently there are no labor certification requirements in our immigration laws for any visa category comparable to the ones described in the trade agreements. However, for the temporary professional workers, there is a requirement for certain employers to complete labor condition attestations. Before hiring a foreign worker, the employer must attest, among other things, that prevailing wages will be paid and the foreign workers will not be used as leverage in any labor dispute. In fact, if there is a strike or lock-out, foreign workers are not even permitted to come into the United States.

The implementing language also provides appropriate penalties for errors

and fraud in the attestations. Contrary to the suggestions made by some of my colleagues, the implementing language does indeed authtorize the Department of Labor to initiate random investigations of anyone who has failed to meet a condition of the attestation. The implementing language does expressly prohibit displacing American workers through lay-offs within 90 days of the filing of a visa application. As for labor certification or numerical limitations on business visitors, traders and investors, or intra-company transferees, we must understand that these visas, if used properly, are not intended to threaten American jobs at all. In fact, business visitors are not even permitted to receive a salary in the U.S. and may only remain for a few months just like tourists.

I appreciate the reality that some unscrupulous American employers have used the visa categories I just described to commit immigration and labor fraud. The visas have become ways for some to hire cheap foreign labor, and that has unfairly hurt American workers. I am sensitive to the difficulties faced by out-of-work Americans and their families. However, we need to understand that the existence of temporary worker visas in our laws is not the problem. The problem is the misuse of these visas by those who do not respect our laws.

We should not tolerate fraud and abuse of our immigration and labor laws. We should take appropriate actions to curb fraud and abuse in this area.

I understand that the Labor Department already has the authority to investigate visa fraud of this nature if a complaint is filed. But, if conferring more investigative authority upon the Labor Department is the key to solving the problem, then Congress should examine that option notwithstanding the lack of any labor certification. I was informed by USTR that the implementing language excluded some language in the current H1-B scheme because those provisions are due to sunset at the end of this fiscal year, but if those provisions are extended, they certainly may be applied to these treaty visas.

I would also like my colleagues to keep in mind that these agreements are reciprocal. Every gesture of courtesy extended to Chilean and Singaporean citizens is extended to American citizens. The same is true for all restrictions. A good illustration is the provision calling for disputes to be resolved in a so-called ``international review panel.'' The panel does not bind the U.S. government, and does not interpret U.S. law. It is a forum, however, where American businesses can address their grievances before an impartial reviewer. As Assistant USTR Ralph Ives testified before the Judiciary Committee the July 14 hearing, these review panels do not take the place of U.S. courts, and do not even review individual cases. Instead, they review allegations of patterns or practices by either party of the trade agreements.

Finally, some have raised a very good question about whether the Trade Act of 2002 confers authority to include matters of immigration in trade agreements. As early as the Commerce and Navigation Treaty with Great Britain of 1815, immigration provisions have been included in trade agreements that allowed for the entry of foreign nationals to conduct trade. Moreover, section 2102 of the Trade Act of 2002 calls for the President to reduce barriers to trade in services. Implicit in that authority is the mandate to provide access for U.S. businesses, including small to mid-size businesses, to foreign markets.

It is clear to me that the language we consider today has benefited from the interaction between Congress and the executive branch. Despite these improvements, some friction remains on the matter of taking up matters affecting general immigration policy as part of the negotiations on particular trade agreements.

Anyone present at either the Senate Judiciary Committee or House Judiciary Committee mark-up of the immigration implementing legislation for the Chile and Singapore FTAs got the message: Tread lightly and consult heavily.

Before I close, I want to reiterate that I have faith in the American worker. I have no doubt that with the right training, our workers can compete with the best in the world. I also believe that competition is good for America. We have no reason to fear foreign competition in the global economy so long as we are all playing by the same rules and on a level playing field.

I introduced The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act that authorizes funds collected from H1-B visa application fees to be invested in training American workers in the fields where we have traditionally relied on foreign workers. I ask my colleagues to join me in efforts and prepare American workers to fill the needs of our job market, especially in the fields of math, science, and high technology. It is my hope that, in due time, we will no longer rely on foreign workers to help fill our needs in any sector of the job market.

In a global marketplace, American workers and firms must be given the opportunity to conduct business abroad. Indeed, we live in a world economy where free trade is vital to our economy. As I see it, the flexibility to send essential personnel from the United States to another country in order to provide much-needed, service-oriented support is an essential part of international commerce. Consequently, within the parameters of sound immigration policy, the United States must reciprocate the courtesy that we expect our trading partners to extend to American citizens working and trading abroad.

I support these two implementing bills. the FTAs with Chile and Singapore are good treaties. On balance, this legislation, despite some of the sensitivities in the area of immigration, will help bring the benefits of these trade treaties to the American public.

I think that a review of the record shows that after extensive discussion with both the Senate staff and the House staff, the administration satisfactorily addressed the vast majority of the concerns expressed by Republican and Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee.

When all is said and done, these are good trade agreements. One of the lessons I hope the administration has learned is that including immigration-related provisions in individual trade agreements that raise General matters of immigration policy is a very, very sensitive issue to us up here. In the future, I expect the administration will avoid negotiating immigration matters in trade agreements unless the Congress is broadly supportive of the provisions. If there are compelling circumstances to negotiate such agreements, I expect extensive consultation between the administration and Congress at both the Member level and staff level so that all of our concerns can be adequately addressed.

The issue of immigration aside, I believe there is a wide consensus that, overall, we have two good trade treaties and two good implementing bills. I urge every Member to vote in favor of the United States-Chile and United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement implementing language.