[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 136 (Tuesday, September 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S12550]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE TRADE DEFICIT

  Mr. DORGAN. In 5 minutes, Mr. President--because I suspect at the end 
of that time some others will want to move on some additional defense 
issues--I wanted to comment on something that happened during the 
Senate's recess. About two weeks ago we received notice about America's 
trade deficit for the first 6 months of this year, and the report was 
met with a giant yawn because nobody cares much about the trade 
deficit. Nobody writes about it. The major press does not treat it 
seriously in this country.
  The trade deficit is largely a function of the trade policy that 
allows big American corporations to profit for their stockholders by 
accessing cheap labor in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Malaysia, or Indonesia, 
and selling the products of that cheap labor in Pittsburgh and Fargo 
and Devils Lake and Denver. All of that might make sense for 
stockholders and profits, but it means a wholesale exodus of jobs out 
of this country.
  The trade figures showed that in the first 6 months of this year, we 
have the largest trade deficit in America's history, and that by the 
end of this year we will have a merchandise trade deficit approaching 
$200 billion. Let me say that again. By the end of this year, our 
merchandise trade deficit will approach $200 billion. By contrast, the 
Federal budget deficit will be $160 billion in this year.
  Let me give you some examples of where we are. Japan: At a time when 
we have a weak dollar, you would expect our trade situation with Japan 
would be improving. It is not. Japan has a $65 billion annual trade 
surplus with the United States; China, over $30 billion.
  We just entered into NAFTA with Mexico and Canada in January of 1994. 
Prior to that, we had a surplus with Mexico, a $2 billion trade 
surplus. Guess what? It is going to be an $18 billion deficit this 
year.
  I would like just one of those folks, one of those apostles for 
change, that came here and preached the virtues of the free trade 
agreement with Mexico, to come and stand in this Chamber and tell me 
how this makes sense for America, how it makes sense for American 
workers, how it makes sense for the people who want good jobs and good 
income in this country.
  We went from a $2 billion trade surplus with Mexico before NAFTA to 
an $18 billion trade deficit projected for 1995. Mexico, China, Japan--
our trade strategy is a disaster, one that requires, in my judgment, 
emergency action in this country to stop the hemorrhaging.
  You can make the point--I do not, but you could make the point--on 
fiscal deficits in this country, that the deficit is money we owe to 
ourselves, and even though it probably is disproportionately owed you 
can make the point that it is not a significant deficit. However, the 
trade deficit must be and will be repaid eventually in this country 
with a lower standard of living in America.
  We have to take emergency action to stop this hemorrhaging. The 
hemorrhaging is the loss of good jobs moving outside of our country 
with the enormous trade imbalances.
  Some people say, ``Well, but the trade deficits relate to the fiscal 
deficits. If we did not have a fiscal deficit, we would not have trade 
deficits.'' The fiscal deficit came down $280 billion to $160 billion. 
The trade policy deficit is going up sharply at exactly the same time.
  I would like the company economists to answer that. The fact is, this 
is a disconnected reality. International corporations, many of them 
Americans, have devised a strategy by which they say, ``We have a plan. 
Our plan is to maximize profits.'' We want to maximize profits by 
producing overseas and selling here. The dilemma with that is it means 
you are losing good manufacturing jobs, which is the genesis of good 
jobs and good income and good security in our country, all for the sake 
of profits. Profits are fine for stockholders. But the fact is, jobs 
are important for the American wage earner.
  We must somehow in some way decide that there is something called 
free trade, but there is something more important called fair trade. 
Should we continue to allow producers to decide to produce in countries 
where they can hire 12-year-old kids to work 12 hours a day and pay 
them 12 cents an hour and then ship the product to be sold in North 
Dakota or Wyoming or New York? Should we allow producers to produce in 
countries where there is no worker safety standard, no child labor 
standards, no minimum living wage standard, and then ship the product 
to be sold in Pittsburgh or Wyoming or North Dakota? I do not think so. 
I think it hurts our country, and I am not a protectionist. I am not 
someone who believes we ought to build walls around our country. But I 
believe this country ought to stand up and insist on fair trade and 
stop the hemorrhaging of trade deficits that injure and weaken 
America's economic system.
  I very much would like one day in some way to see the press and the 
corporate structures and others in our country, especially Congress, 
take seriously what I think is an emergency in this country; and that 
is a failed trade strategy that is a bipartisan failure. It has been a 
failure for 20 years.
  Our trade policies have not essentially changed since the end of the 
Second World War. During the first 25 years after World War II it was 
almost totally a foreign policy, foreign aid strategy. In those first 
25 years it did not matter because we were so big and so strong that we 
just won the world economic race by waking up in the morning.
  However, in the last 25 years that same trade policy has been a 
disaster. Sixty percent of the American families now have less income 
than they did 20 years ago, and less jobs and less opportunities.
  That is why this is an important issue that this country must begin 
to address and begin to address on a bipartisan basis and do it soon.
  Mr. President, thank you for the time.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________