[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 65 (Friday, May 16, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4654-S4655]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       FAST-TRACK TRADE AUTHORITY

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to mention quickly two other 
subjects. The first is a letter that I have sent to the President with 
my colleague from Maine, Senator Olympia Snowe, about the issue of 
fast-track trade authority, and then, second, I would like to offer a 
comment about the budget agreement.
  First, on the issue of fast-track trade authority, Mr. President, 
Senator Olympia Snowe and I have sent a letter to President Clinton 
indicating to him that we do not believe it is appropriate to extend 
fast-track trade authority and that we would oppose the extension of 
fast-track trade authority.
  This may not mean much to a lot of folks. Fast-track trade authority 
is a kind of inside baseball term, I suppose, for Members of Congress. 
What is fast-track authority? Fast track is a trade procedure by which 
the Congress says to an administration, any administration, you go out 
and negotiate a trade agreement with some other country or group of 
countries, and then the trade agreement is brought back to the Senate 
or the House and must be considered on something called fast track. 
This means the Senate and House must vote on it up or down with no 
opportunity to amend it. Fast track means no opportunity to amend it. 
You bring it to the Senate. The Senate votes yes or no, and that is the 
end of it.

  We do not use fast-track authority on the arms control agreements. We 
did not have fast-track authority on the chemical weapons treaty that 
this Senate passed a couple of weeks ago. Only on trade agreements do 
we have what is called fast track. It is fundamentally undemocratic, in 
my judgment.
  The reason I do not support fast track and the extension of fast-
track authority is fast track has been the wrong track for this 
country. I urge my colleagues to take a look at our trade deficit. We 
talk about eliminating the budget deficit, and there is great merit in 
that, and I am going to be supportive of that.
  What about the other deficit? What about the trade deficit, which is 
the largest merchandise trade deficit in the history of this country 
right now? This is the largest merchandise trade deficit in the history 
of this country, and you do not hear a word about it, not a word. We 
have had trade agreement after trade agreement, and guess what. After 
every trade agreement, we have greater hemorrhaging of red ink and 
greater trade deficits.
  This is a chart that shows those trade deficits. We had the Tokyo 
round in 1981. That year we had a $28 billion merchandise trade 
deficit. Then we went out and we added the United States-Canada Free-
Trade Agreement, and that year we had a $115 billion trade deficit. 
Then there was NAFTA. Then it was the Uruguay round. Every time we have 
a new trade agreement, our trade deficit increases.
  I would like to get the names and pictures of those folks who are 
negotiating these things and ask them, by what standard do you view 
success? Is it successful to have successive trade agreements that mean 
this country goes deeper into merchandise trade debt? I do not think 
so. That is not how I would define success.
  This is a chart which shows what has happened with our two neighbors. 
First we had the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement. Then we had 
the North American Free-Trade Agreement, called NAFTA, with Canada and 
Mexico, and the Mexico Free Trade Agreement.
  Guess what has happened. Before we had the trade agreement with our 
neighbors, we had a trade surplus with Mexico. Then we go off and 
negotiate a trade agreement with the Mexicans and the Canadians. Now we 
have a combined deficit that totals nearly $40 billion.
  Look what has happened to the trade deficit with Mexico and Canada. 
We had a $2 billion surplus with Mexico in 1993. Now we have a $16 
billion deficit. We had all these economists who said, if we would just 
do this, we would get 250,000 new jobs. Well, guess what. In fact, the 
major economist who pledged the 250,000 new jobs said, ``Whoops, I was 
wrong. I guess there are no 250,000 new jobs; there is more trade 
debt.''
  Harry Truman once said: I want to get a one-armed economist. I am 
getting tired of economists saying ``on this hand'' and ``on the other 
hand.'' We do not need economists who give us this kind of advice.
  What about the trade deficit? Where is this trade deficit? Well, 92 
percent of the trade deficit is with six countries. First there is 
Japan. Then there is China, and this one is growing to beat the band, 
by the way. Then we have Canada and Mexico where the deficits have been 
growing substantially. Finally, there are Germany and Taiwan.
  I want to remind those who want to extend fast track about the 
Constitution. The Constitution of the United States, article I, section 
8, says ``The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with 
foreign nations.'' It does not say anything about fast track. It does 
not say anything about handcuffs or straitjackets. It does not say 
anything about having some nameless negotiator run off to foreign 
shores someplace and negotiate a bad agreement and then come back to 
the Congress and say, by the way, vote on this, and you have no 
opportunity to amend it.
  I wonder how many in this Chamber know what kind of tariff exists on 
a T-bone steak you send to Tokyo. I bet not many. Not too many years 
ago we negotiated with Japan, with whom we have a very large, abiding 
continual trade deficit. We negotiated a beef agreement. We wanted to 
get more United States beef into Japan. So our negotiators went out on 
behalf of our beef producers and others and negotiated with Japan.
  All of a sudden one day in the newspapers we see in a big headline 
that we have reached agreement with Japan on a beef agreement. They 
were having a day of feasting and rejoicing. You would have thought all 
these negotiators just won the gold medal in the Olympics. Then we find 
out that, yes, we have a new agreement with Japan and, yes, we are 
getting more American beef into Japan. But, guess what? Try sending a 
T-bone steak to Tokyo. What is the tariff to get T-bone into Tokyo? 
It's up to a 50-percent tariff on beef to Japan.
  Would that be considered successful in any area of the world in 
international trade? No. That would be defined as a colossal failure in 
every set of circumstances except when our negotiators are negotiating 
an agreement with Japan. They define that as success. They line up to 
get their blue ribbons.
  It's like they had a steer at the county fair and had just won blue 
ribbons and want to get congratulated for it. Yes, we got more beef in 
Japan. Just think what we take into our marketplace from Japan in 
exchange for that. And we hit a 50-percent tariff.
  I could talk about potatoes from Mexico, I could talk about Durum 
wheat flooding our markets from Canada. I could talk forever about 
these trade problems. I don't want to do that today. I only want to say 
this to the President, to the administration, and to the Members of 
Congress: Don't talk about fast track until we have straightened out 
the trade agreements that we have had in recent years that have put our 
producers and our workers at a disadvantage. Don't talk about fast 
track until you have negotiated the problems dealing with Canada and 
grain.
  I was in a little orange truck going up to the Canadian border one 
day with 200 bushels of Durum wheat. That little orange truck couldn't 
get over the border into Canada. Do you know why? They stopped us at 
the border and said you couldn't take Durum wheat into Canada. All the 
way up to the border we found truck after truck, semi-loads, dozens of 
them, hauling Canadian grain south, but we couldn't get a harmless 
little orange truck north.
  In fact, one North Dakotan couldn't get a grocery sack of wheat into 
Canada. She married a Canadian and was back home visiting, and wanted 
to take a grocery sack of wheat into Canada to grind it and make whole 
wheat bread, and guess what, they wouldn't let her take a grocery sack 
of wheat north. All the while, hundreds of semi-trucks full of Canadian 
wheat come south.

[[Page S4655]]

  That is just one example. I say, Mr. President, and others, if you 
want fast-track authority? Then straighten out the trade problems that 
now exist. Yes, straighten out the problems with Canada and Mexico and 
Japan and others and I will be the first to line up and say let's talk 
about new trade authority. But until we solve the vexing and difficult 
problems of trade agreements that have now resulted in the largest 
trade deficit in the history of this country, we ought not be moving 
towards fast-track trade authority.
  Before I finish that subject, let me put in a word about Charlene 
Barshefsky, our new Trade Ambassador. I like Charlene Barshefsky. She 
has some spunk and she has some life. She is out there, trying to say 
to our trading partners that we expect reciprocal trading policies. If 
we open our market to your goods you have a responsibility to open your 
market to ours. She has been in Canada, telling the Canadians what you 
are doing with Canadian grain is wrong and it abrogates the treaty.
  In fact--just one more point about the Canadian grain--when the 
United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement passed the House Ways and 
Means Committee, and I was on the committee, the vote was 34 to 1. That 
``1'' was me. I said at the time I felt that treaty was going to result 
in a serious problem for us. And it has.
  Clayton Yeutter, the Trade Ambassador at that point, said, ``No, no, 
no. Your concerns about an avalanche of Canadian grain flooding the 
United States market and undercutting American farmers, that is 
nonsense. That will not happen.''
  I'll tell you what he said. Mr. Yeutter said, ``I'll tell you what, I 
will give it to you in writing. I will make the promise in writing.'' 
And he wrote it down. He said that his agreement with the Canadians was 
with the understanding that good faith would be subscribed to by both 
sides by not dramatically changing the quantity of grain coming across 
the border. That was his agreement. So he wrote it down. That was good 
faith. That was his understanding. That is what he negotiated. However, 
it was not worth the paper it was written on.
  The second the ink was dry and the minute the treaty was done, what 
we saw was an avalanche of grain come south. At the same time you 
couldn't take a grocery sack full north. It undercut our markets in 
Durum wheat especially, and cost our farmers massive amounts of lost 
income.

  So, why am I a little sore about some of those things? I am angry 
because we have negotiated trade agreements that have undercut our 
producers and we ought not do that. I am for free trade. I am for 
expanded trade. But I am for fair trade. If it is not fair, than the 
agreement is not right.
  Charlene Barshefsky is a breath of fresh air and she is trying. She 
can only do what any administration allows her to do. I urge the 
President and others to understand that in order to have trade 
negotiating authority of anything resembling fast track, they first 
must address the serious problems in the previous agreements that have 
been negotiated. Until that happens, at least a number of us, including 
Senator Snowe and I, based on the letter we have sent to the President, 
do not support the extension of fast track for all the reasons I have 
mentioned previously.

                          ____________________