[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 120 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9157-S9159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       FAST-TRACK TRADE AUTHORITY

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the President has sent to the Congress a 
determination that he would like Congress to provide what is called 
fast-track trade authority with which he could negotiate additional and 
new

[[Page S9158]]

trade agreements with other countries. It is my hope that in the coming 
weeks, this request will result in a significant, new and interesting 
debate about this country's trade policies.
  I know as I begin this discussion that we will almost retreat 
immediately into two camps. The one camp is ``We're for free trade, 
we're for, therefore, what is called fast-track trade authority.'' The 
other side is somehow a bunch of know-nothing protectionists, a bunch 
of xenophobes who just don't understand the world, and all they want to 
do is create walls around our country.
  That is the thoughtless way that most trade debate has been conducted 
in this town and in Congress. I hope, however, that this time, when we 
discuss fast-track trade authority, we will have an opportunity to 
evaluate trade policy.
  The issue for me is not fast track. That is a procedural issue. Yes; 
I will want to evaluate the underlying law from 1974 on fast track, and 
I am going to do that to see whether that fast-track approach might be 
changed. However, I am much more interested in the question of what 
will be the results? What kind of trade agreements and what kinds of 
trade policies are they seeking under fast track?
  We had fast track most recently for something called NAFTA, a set of 
trade agreements with the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Just prior 
to fast track, we had a $2 billion trade surplus with Mexico. Now we 
have a $16 billion trade deficit with Mexico. Can anyone believe that 
should be described as a success? I think not. Just prior to this trade 
agreement, we had an $11 billion trade deficit with Canada. Now we have 
a $23 billion trade deficit with Canada. Can that be described as a 
success? I think not.
  Our trade problems go and on. There is China, Japan, and more. We 
will have a trade deficit with China of well over $40 billion a year. 
Our trade deficit with Japan has hovered between $50 and $60 billion a 
year as far as the eye can see.
  No one wants to talk about the central question we ought to debate 
with respect to trade, and that is, what about enforcing the trade 
agreements that already exist?
  I want to give my colleagues an example of one of the things that 
bothers me so much about where we go in this trade discussion. Right at 
this moment we have an ongoing discussion with Japan on the issue of 
the United States aviation industry's access to the Japanese markets. 
In trade with Japan, in the arena of airline passenger service, we have 
a net surplus with Japan of a couple billion dollars. We have better 
carriers in terms of being able to compete. They are better able to 
compete with the Japanese, and we actually do quite well. We have a 
surplus in that area.
  If we had completely open skies and unlimited competition and 
unfettered competition with the Japanese with respect to airlines, we 
would have an even larger surplus with Japan. But we have trade 
agreements with Japan that we made previously with respect to passenger 
aviation and with respect to hauling freight on airlines, and so on.
  What has happened is the Japanese have not abided by the previous 
agreements. We have had a freight agreement with them that they simply 
have ignored, and have not abided by. Now we are back into negotiation 
with the Japanese, and the Japanese have done a couple of things. For 
one, they said, ``We don't like the fact that you have a surplus with 
us on hauling airline passengers.''
  Think of the arrogance of that. Here is a country that has a $50 
billion trade surplus with us--and has had such a surplus every year, 
year after year after year--complaining about one little sector where 
we have a surplus with them, and then they want to get us into a 
negotiation. Instead of going to open skies where you have free and 
open competition, they want to get this administration--and I think 
this administration is headed in that direction--to reach an agreement 
that is not in our interest.

  That is an example of what is wrong with trade policy. We ought to 
say to the Japanese that on aviation and other issues that we believe 
that our trade policy ought to result for this country, for the United 
States, increased economic opportunity and increased trade and, yes, 
balanced trade. This country cannot and should not countenance long-
term trade deficits with countries like Japan of $50 and $60 billion a 
year.
  We ought to say to China, for example, that you have a $40 billion 
trade surplus with us. We have become a cash cow for your hard currency 
needs in China, and we will no longer stand for it. If you want to send 
us all the goods from China into the United States, then we say to you, 
you have a responsibility and an obligation to buy more from us.
  Why is all this important? Because it represents economic vitality 
and jobs. It is interesting. I hear people talk about trade and they 
say, ``Gee, we've done so well in trade. We've doubled our exports to 
this country or that country.'' That is the first thing they will point 
out in a press release.
  So the headline is ``U.S. Doubles Export of Goods to Country X.'' 
What they didn't say was that imports from that country increased 10 
times during the same time period, which means that our trade deficit 
with that country skyrocketed.
  So the whole story, the rest of the story, would describe failure, 
but the press release describes success--``We've doubled our exports.''
  In sectors where you have tradable goods, we actually have had a net 
job loss in this country as a result of all the trade agreements. The 
job gains which are often trumpeted as being the result of exports 
actually come from areas in the nontradable sectors of our economy, 
particularly in services.
  The point I am making about all of this is we are going to have a 
debate about fast-track trade authority. I want the debate to be about 
trade policy. Is our trade policy working for this country or isn't it?
  I happen to believe in expanded trade. I believe in free trade to the 
extent that it is fair. I also believe in trade agreements to the 
extent that we negotiate trade agreements that are in this country's 
interest. But, for a change, I would like the negotiators who negotiate 
trade agreements to start wearing the jersey of our side. It is our 
team that we are worried about.
  Is that economic nationalism? Well, I don't know about all those 
terms they throw about. Do I care about the long-term economic 
opportunities in this country? Yes. Do I want economic growth here? 
Yes. Do I want jobs in this country? Yes.
  So when a country like China says to the United States, ``We want to 
ship you all of these goods and run a very large surplus with you or 
have you run a large deficit with us,'' and then China says, ``By the 
way, we want to buy some airplanes,'' and they say, ``We don't want to 
buy airplanes made in America, we want you to have your American 
company produce these airplanes in China,'' we ought to say that's not 
the way a trade relationship works.
  A bilateral trade relationship works in a way that says, ``When you 
have goods our consumers need, we will buy them from you and you have 
access to our marketplace, but when you need what we produce, when you 
need what our workers and our companies produce, we expect you to buy 
them from us.'' That is the way a trade relationship works in a manner 
that is mutually beneficial to both parties.
  Our country has been satisfied to have a trade policy that has 
produced trade deficits, net trade deficits for 36 out of the last 38 
years. You show me one CEO of one American company who has had 167 
successive quarters of losses, quarter after quarter after quarter 
forever, who isn't going to stop and say, ``Gee, I think there's 
something wrong here. Something is out of whack.'' That is exactly what 
is wrong with our trade policy. Yet, Republicans and Democrats will 
tell us on the floor of this Senate that our trade policy is working 
very well. What a terrific policy, they tell us.

  I want for us to have greater access to foreign markets. For example: 
If China wants to send us goods that exceed the amount of goods they 
will accept from us by $40 billion a year, I want us to say to China, 
``You have an obligation to buy much, much, much more from the United 
States of America to have a balanced trade relationship.'' I want us to 
say the same thing to Japan, the same thing to Mexico, the same thing 
to Canada and others

[[Page S9159]]

with whom we have large, abiding trade deficits. We need to say that 
because those deficits weaken this country. Those deficits detract from 
our economic growth and fundamentally weaken the American economy.
  There are those who, I guess, believe that whatever the interests of 
the largest corporations in the world are, that they are also in the 
common interests of the United States. Things have changed. We do, 
indeed, have a global economy, but the largest corporations in the 
world now are not national citizens. They don't get up in the morning 
and say, ``Well, you know, I'm an artificial person, I'm a corporation, 
what in law is described as an artificial person; I can sue and be 
sued, contract and be contracted with; I'm an artificial person and, 
therefore, I have allegiance to this country.'' That's not what they 
do.
  We are not talking about American corporations anymore. We are 
talking about international corporations that do global business that 
are interested in profits for their shareholders.
  How do you maximize profits for your shareholders? You access the 
cheapest kind of production that you can access in the world, produce 
there at a dime-an-hour, a-quarter-an-hour, or a half-a-dollar-an-hour 
wages and then ship the products to Pittsburgh, Toledo, Los Angeles, or 
Fargo and sell it on a shelf in a store in one of those cities. Produce 
where it is cheap and then access the American marketplace.
  The problem with that strategy is that while it presents increased 
profits for international corporations it tends to undermine the 
American economy. I am not saying the global economy and the growth of 
the global economy is wholly bad; it is not. It provides new 
opportunities and new choices for the consumers, and in some cases 
lower-priced goods for the consumers. The question we have to ask 
ourselves is: what is fair trade and what advances this country's 
economic interests?
  If deciding that you can produce something that you used to produce 
in Akron, OH, in a factory in Sri Lanka or Indonesia or Bangladesh and 
you can get 14-year-olds, pay them 24 cents an hour, working 13 hours a 
day--if you decide that is in your company's interest--is that in this 
country's interest? I don't think so.
  Is it in this country's interest to see that kind of manufacturing 
job flight from this country to a low-wage country so that the same 
product can be produced to be shipped back into this country, and the 
only thing that's changed is the corporation has more profit and the 
United States has fewer jobs? Is that in this country's interest? I 
don't think so.
  I was on a television program 2 days ago. When I asked this question 
the moderator said the conditions under which goods are produced in 
other countries is none of our business. If another country wants to 
hire kids and pay them dimes an hour, if another country wants to 
produce by dumping chemicals into the water and pollution into the air, 
if another country wants to produce having no restrictions on those 
companies and allows them to pollute the air and water, hire kids, pay 
a dime an hour, if that's what they want to do, is that none of our 
business? And if the production from that factory--hiring kids and 
polluting the air and polluting the water--if that production comes 
into this country and goes on the grocery store shelves, is that all 
the better for the American consumer because it is going to be cheaper?
  I think that is a catastrophe to have that kind of attitude. This 
country spent 60 years debating the question of what is a fair wage? 
This country spent decades debating whether we ask polluters to stop 
polluting, and whether we demand that polluters stop polluting in order 
to clean our air and water. This country spent a long while debating 
the question of child labor and whether we should allow factories to 
employ 10-year-olds and 12-year-olds.
  This country has debated all those issues. Yet, in the so-called 
global economy, fashioned in the interest of those who want to 
accelerate profits from it, there are those who would tell us that they 
can just pole vault over all of those issues. They don't have to worry 
about minimum wages. They do not have to worry about pollution control. 
They do not have to worry about any of that because they can move their 
factories elsewhere and ship their products back into the United 
States. That is not fair trade. That is not something that advances the 
economic interests of our country and ought not be allowed.

  What we do is we pass trade agreement after trade agreement, and we 
don't enforce any of them. When someone hears me speak they say, ``Gee, 
this is just another protectionist that wants to put walls around this 
country.'' I do not; not at all. I am very interested in saying to 
other countries, first of all, you have an obligation. There is an 
admission price to the American marketplace. The admission price is 
that you must abide by certain standards with respect to clean air and 
clean water, and you can't hire kids, and you can't pay a nickel an 
hour. Yes, that is the admission price to compete in our domestic 
market.
  And, yes, there is a requirement with other countries with whom we 
have a trade relationship. That requirement is if they want to access 
the American marketplace and dump tens of millions of dollars of 
products into that marketplace, then they have a responsibility to 
America. That responsibility is that their marketplace must be open to 
us. If our workers and our producers want to go to Japan and go to 
China to sell our goods in their marketplace, they must have their 
marketplace open for that. And to the extent you don't, it is unfair 
trade.
  To the extent any country is involved in unfair trade, this country 
ought to have the will and the nerve to say that we're not going to put 
up with it.
  Mr. President, one final point. This advent of a global economy post-
Second World War has been an interesting kind of development. The first 
25 years after the Second World War we could compete with anybody in 
the world with one hand tied behind our back. It did not matter much. 
Our trade policy was almost all foreign policy. Whatever we did or had 
with another country had to do with foreign policy. For the first 25 
years we could do that easily. We did that and our incomes kept rising 
in this country.
  The second 25 years we have had to deal with competitors who are 
shrewd, tough economic competitors. We now must insist on trade 
relationships and trade agreements that are fair to this country's 
interests. The conditions of trade must be conditions with rules that 
are fair to our workers and producers. The absence of that means that 
this country is the economic loser. This ought not be what we aspire to 
achieve in trade agreements.
  Mr. President, I have more to say, regrettably, for my colleagues who 
do not like this message. I will say it often in the coming weeks as we 
discuss the trade issue. For now I will yield the floor. I see the 
minority leader has come to the floor. I know he is going to talk about 
another topic of great interest. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will use my leader time to talk on another matter, and 
I appreciate very much the Senator from North Dakota yielding the floor 
to allow me to do so.

                          ____________________