[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 125 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9627-S9630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          FAST TRACK NEGOTIATING AUTHORITY ON TRADE AGREEMENTS

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, The President this week submitted to the 
Congress the ``Export Expansion and Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 
1997'', designed to renew so-called ``fast track'' procedures for trade 
agreements. There are many issues associated with this proposal, 
evidenced by the reports that the White House has essentially 
established a ``war room'' to marshall the votes in the Congress to 
support its proposal. We all know the United States needs to be 
competitive in foreign markets, and we all know the administration 
needs to strike the best deals it can with foreign nations on behalf of 
American business and consumers. There is no dispute over these goals. 
My concern today is over the procedure which the administration wishes 
to incorporate in considering this proposal which is driven by the 
insistence by the Clinton Administration that it can only be effective 
in promoting U.S. trade and negotiating such agreements if the 
legislative vehicle we consider is subject to one up-and-down vote, 
after a period of limited debate.
  The administration has elevated its desire to eliminate the 
opportunity for the Congress to amend such enacting legislation to the 
stature or degree of a religious mantra. The administration seems to 
think that any agreement it submits to the Congress will, in fact, be 
amended, forcing it to renegotiate agreements it has reached with 
foreign nations and thereby shredding its stature as a negotiator The 
argument goes that fast-track authority is critical because it sends to 
our negotiating partners a necessary promise of good faith, that is, 
they will know that the deals hammered out at the negotiating table 
won't be dismembered by amendments in the Congress. The proposition is 
now being stated and restated by the administration's legions ad 
nauseam that without fast track all is lost, American leadership is 
gone, nations won't negotiate with us, our strategy on trade as a 
nation will fail, the sky will go dark, all life forms will perish, and 
on and on. These assertions are repeated at every opportunity, as if 
repetition really makes them valid. I say they are wild exaggerations, 
wild exaggerations, wild exaggerations, which underestimate both the 
capabilities of our negotiators and the sound judgment of the Congress 
of the United States.
  Mr. President, the insistence on the no-amendment strategy reveals a 
staggering lack of confidence on the part of the administration in its 
own negotiating prowess. It suggests that, heaven forbid, possible 
weaknesses in the agreements that are reached will be discovered and 
acted upon by the Congress. It shows no sense of confidence--no sense 
of confidence--on the part of the administration that it can prevail in 
arguing the merits of a particular agreement to the Congress, thereby 
forcing the administration to return to the negotiating table to change 
an agreement. From what I understand, for instance, the relative tariff 
barriers between the U.S. and Chile are such that an agreement reducing 
the Chilean barriers is desirable. Why would the Congress not want to 
support an agreement that is in our interest in penetrating the Chilean 
market, to even out the playing field on trade matters between the U.S. 
and Chile?
  There is no inconsistency between supporting free trade, or freer 
trade, as negotiated by the administration around the world, and 
preserving the right of the Congress not only to scrutinize the 
agreements reached for their worthiness, but also to question, if 
necessary, parts of the agreement that might appear not to be in our 
overall interest. If the administration does its job and negotiates 
sound agreements, they should be approved by the Congress as such, 
intact, regardless if there is ``fast-track'' procedure or not. The 
Senate is not unresponsive to arguments made by the administration that 
an international agreement that it has negotiated is in the national 
interest and that amendments could unravel it. That is not to say that 
if there is a flaw in the agreement that is serious enough for 
renegotiation, it may just be in the American national interest for the 
negotiators to be forced to go back to the table by the people's 
elected representatives and get it right. If they do the job right in 
the first place, renegotiation should not be necessary.
  Mr. President, one could just as easily make the case that, if the 
Senate retained amending authority, our negotiators might just come up 
with a somewhat better product, knowing that the entire agreement will 
be scrutinized by the elected representatives of the American people. 
After all, the agreements that are negotiated are presumably on the 
behalf of the American people, the same constituency that is 
represented by this Senate. On the other hand, the Senate has a 
responsibility to turn back amendments that might be offered 
representing special interests, but not the overall American interest. 
That is the ``American Way.'' Would such amendments be offered? 
Possibly. Would they be approved by a majority of Senate? Not if the 
American interest in the overall agreement would be hurt. This body has 
the capability of exerting leadership on trade, just as on any other 
matter. It can do what is in the best interests of the nation and yet 
not kill trade agreements through special interest amendments.
  The administration, in its insistence on a no-amendment treaty on 
trade indicates either a lack of confidence in the integrity of this 
body, or a lack of confidence on the part of its own negotiators, or 
just simply a desire to have its way and not have to do the hard work 
of convincing the Senate of the value of the agreement that it has just 
negotiated.
  It wants to have it the easy way, no questions asked, just present 
the agreement to the Senate and the House of Representatives and both 
bodies just roll over and sleep, sleep, sleep; not have to do the hard 
work of convincing the Senate of the value of the agreement that it has 
just negotiated.
  None of these reasons seems to justify eliminating through a special 
procedure the power of this body to amend if a majority of this body, 
or the other body, finds it necessary to do so. None of this justifies 
Congress' handing off its exclusive power under Article I Section 8, of 
the Constitution, to ``regulate Commerce with foreign nations''. The 
amending potential is a healthy check on sloppy work. The amending 
potential can prevent a lazy presentation of the issues, or just plain 
bad negotiating results.
  Here is what one pundit says about the need for fast-track 
negotiating authority. According to David Rothkopf, in an article 
appearing in the current issue of ``The New Democrat'': ``If the United 
States doesn't have fast-track authority it cannot negotiate 
agreements.''
  Piffle! That is sheer nonsense, ``If the United States doesn't have 
fast-track authority it cannot negotiate agreements.''
  It goes on to say that this is supposedly a crucial tool that the 
``administration needs,'' according to Mr. Rothkopf ``to ensure that 
U.S. businesses and workers are treated fairly in the global economy.'' 
I contend that this is all a non sequitur--it just does not follow that 
preserving the power of the Senate over legislation is inconsistent 
with America's ability to negotiate agreements. If the Congress does 
not want the trading environment supposedly created by particular 
agreements, it can vote the whole thing down. Fast track authority does 
not, somehow by itself, produce an immediate supporting of freer trade 
in the Congress.

  The administration has expended a huge amount of energy in an 
exercise to convince the Congress to foreswear its normal ability to 
amend legislation. And there will be some in here who will fall for 
that. The administration might be better served to put those tremendous 
energies into negotiating sound agreements with our negotiating 
partners and then selling the

[[Page S9628]]

value of those agreements to the Congress on the merits of the 
agreements themselves.
  Mr. President, the highly respected head of the U.S. Trade 
Representative's office, Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky, who did such 
an excellent job in negotiating an intellectual property agreement with 
China, made a presentation before the Senate Finance committee on 
yesterday, Wednesday, in support of the administration's fast track 
proposal to the Senate. She asserted that fast track is ``critical to 
increase access to foreign markets.'' I would think, rather, that good 
solid provisions in a trade agreement, resulting from negotiations that 
focus on what is in our national interest, will increase America's 
access to foreign markets. Fast track consideration of poorly 
negotiated, badly constructed provisions would not necessarily give us 
increased access. Fast track of the Intellectual Property agreement 
with the Chinese did not make the negotiating process with the Chinese, 
always excruciatingly difficult, any easier. There is no substitute for 
tough implementation and policing of solid provisions, as Ambassador 
Barshefsky well knows. She is a fine negotiator, but had to negotiate 
that agreement twice, and it still is not clear that we have free 
access to the Chinese market and that the provisions safeguarding U.S. 
intellectual property are yet in place in the Chinese market. This has 
nothing whatever to do with fast track, slow track or any other track 
on the Senate floor. It has to do with the implementation of agreements 
to gain access to those markets, a very serious problem in the Pacific 
where the deficits we are running on our merchandise account are so 
huge, and growing, that they themselves are the single major factor 
jeopardizing the administration's so-called ``free trade'' philosophy.
  Mrs. Barshefsky stated in her testimony that, under fast track, the 
``Congress and the President work together.'' We can, and do, certainly 
work together, day in and day out on legislation of all kinds and all 
subjects without, however, crippling our authority to amend those 
vehicles. Can one really say that we in the Senate are less serious 
about trade when we wish to scrutinize and carefully assess all parts 
of a trade agreement? Nonsense!
  Mrs. Barshefsky echoes the administration's line--here it is: ``if we 
do not renew fast track, . . . our trading partners are not willing to 
wait for us to pass another bill.'' Who believes that? Who will believe 
that? In other words they won't negotiate with us if we in the Congress 
don't grant the administration nonamendable rules and limited debate 
concessions. This is absurd! Absurd. If our trading partners believe 
that trade agreements with us are in their own national interest, it 
strains my credulity to hear that they will not negotiate trade 
agreements with us in the absence of fast track. From 1934 to 1974, 
there was no fast track, and Mrs. Barshefsky testified that in those 40 
years, ``Congress gave the president authority to negotiate mutual 
tariff reductions with our trading partners. Congress renewed that 
authority repeatedly over the years and successive Presidents used that 
authority to dramatically reduce tariff barriers around the world.'' 
So, apparently over that 40-year period, our trading partners were 
willing to negotiate with us with no mention of truncated legislative 
rules. Everything was fine.
  Mrs. Barshefsky goes on to testify that to complete the negotiating 
agenda of the World Trade Organization, in government procurement, 
intellectual property rights, agriculture and services, where we seek 
enhanced global access to markets, ``we must have fast track authority 
to enter these various talks or countries will not put meaningful 
offers on the table.'' Now, who is so gullible as to believe that? I 
just do not believe this assertion, provided the agreements to be 
reached are in the interests of the negotiating countries. And we have 
to assume that that will be their goal, to reach agreements that are in 
their own interests. Countries seek to promote their self-interests, 
fast track or slow track, or whatever track, and it is the job of our 
negotiators to get the best deal possible. It is just a typical 
bargaining situation.
  Mr. President, Senators might well consider the impact of fast track-
no amendment authority on the basic leverage available to U.S. 
negotiators. I believe the proposition that fast track enhances U.S. 
negotiators' capabilities is open to very serious question. It would be 
a matter of enhanced leverage for U.S. negotiators that a certain 
matter should be included in an agreement because it is a matter of 
strong concern to the Senate. The threat that a provision would not be 
supported by the Senate is a threat that I as a negotiator, if I were a 
negotiator, might like to have as additional leverage in a negotiation. 
Fast track eliminates this form of leverage. There is nobody watching 
over your shoulder. The administration maintains that fast track 
authority prohibiting amendments ``tells U.S. trading partners that the 
United States speaks at the bargaining table with one voice and that 
the Congress will not seek to reopen trade agreements after they are 
negotiated'', according to the documents accompanying the President's 
proposal delivered to the Senate yesterday. I think that, on the 
contrary, this basically weakens the leverage available to our 
negotiators in dealing with tough issues at the table vis-a-vis the 
representatives of other nations.
  It is our apparent inability to implement agreements which promise 
access abroad that is the central trouble in our trading situation, and 
the continued inability of the administration to address and begin to 
solve it will be the key problem--not fast track--over the next decade 
regarding the so-called global market. Indeed, the administration would 
do well to worry about congressional reaction over the next couple of 
years to this situation. It would do well to spend less time trying to 
manipulate protective devices around its agreements when they are 
considered by the Congress.
  Does the frenzied attempt by the administration to wrap a protective 
cover around the agreements it negotiates have anything to do with what 
has been generally acknowledged to be an overselling of the NAFTA--the 
North American Free Trade Agreement--a few years ago? That was 
oversold. The overpromising of the benefits of that agreement should 
instruct us that the administration needs to be more careful in 
evaluating what it has actually accomplished. A dose of reality and 
caution in marketing the prowess of our negotiators would be well 
advised. If the Senate provided the President the authority to 
negotiate trade agreements, but failed to give him protection against 
amendments, it would not be the end of the world. The skies would not 
fall, the mountains would not crumble, the waters in the oceans would 
not rise. It would not be the end. My bet is that a good agreement with 
Chile, for example, could be reached which would sail through the 
Congress. At the same time, one would hope that the era of the oversell 
would be ended. And we have had that oversell for many, many years. 
Every administration that comes in, Republican and Democrat, wants to 
have it all their way. They don't want Congress to have a say when it 
comes to amending a trade treaty.
  This extensive marketing job for fast track is a transparent attempt, 
using the most exaggerated series of assertions I have heard on any 
matter in a long time, to stampede the Senate into abandoning its 
constitutional right, its constitutional power, its constitutional 
prerogatives over fundamental legislation affecting the people of the 
United States in the market and at the mall. Now we hear a drumbeat 
that if you are for unlimited debate, if you are for amendable 
treatment of trade agreements and implementing legislation, like 
virtually all other kinds of legislation, you are a protectionist--you 
are a protectionist.
  What a bad word. That's what you are. If you want to uphold the 
powers of the Constitution vested in the Senate and House, if you want 
to uphold those powers when it comes to trade, you are a protectionist. 
Fie on you--a protectionist!
  If you are for shortchanging the legislative process, you are for 
free trade. That makes no sense whatever to me, for I am for free trade 
if it is fair to all parties, but I am for protecting Senate powers and 
responsibilities in the handling of legislation which is, after all, 
our constitutional duty. And what do we mean when we say, ``I am for 
protecting the Senate's power''? It means

[[Page S9629]]

I am for protecting the rights of the people, because those rights are 
given life here in this forum of the States. That is our constitutional 
duty, as I say. We should think long and hard before we concede this 
authority. Senators need to read the fine print of the legislative 
proposal to understand just what broad powers are being relinquished 
and they need to go back and read the Constitution again. The 
administration, I think, has it exactly backwards: instead of 
concentrating its energies on accumulating as much leverage as it can 
vis-a-vis our trading partners, it is marshaling these energies in the 
opposite direction--wrong way Corrigan--inward, to convince the 
Congress to reduce its leverage, and by extension, the nation's vital 
leverage abroad.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished leader, the 
Senator from West Virginia. He has really brought us a sobering 
reminder of the constitutional function of the National Congress. 
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution doesn't say the Supreme Court 
nor the Executive, but rather the Congress shall regulate foreign 
commerce.
  As Senator Byrd mentions protectionists, I remember the second 
inauguration of President Reagan in the Rotunda due to inclement 
weather. The distinguished President, taking that oath, pledged with 
hand raised and the other hand on the Bible, to preserve, protect and 
defend. Then we came back down and somehow got into a debate relative 
to trade and well, we were all protectionists.
  We have the Army to protect us from enemies without; the FBI to 
protect us from enemies within; we have Social Security to protect us 
from old age; Medicare to protect us from ill health. The very function 
of Government is to protect.
  What is really at issue here, not just fast track on Mercosur or 
Chile, but really the fact is that we as politicians, Republican and 
Democrat both, come in and say, before you open up Gregg manufacturing, 
you first must have clean air, clean water, minimum wage, Social 
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, plant closing notice, parental leave, 
safe machinery, safe working place. Oh, we all go around jumping up and 
down to make sure that we have safe and healthy remunerative employment 
in America. Then we come around, and when the industry in my backyard 
moves down to Mexico because labor costs just 58 cents an hour and 
industry has none of those requirements, they say, ``Free trade, free 
trade, free, free, free.'' There is nothing free.
  Cordell Hull said reciprocal free trade, competitive free trade. That 
has to be understood. We have to understand more particularly that the 
security and success of this Republic stands like on a three-legged 
stool. We have the one leg of the values we have as a Nation. That is 
unquestioned. For instance, we commit ourselves to try and bring about 
peace in the Mideast. Our Secretary of State continued to try just this 
past week.
  We commit our troops in Bosnia for peacekeeping. We have an ongoing 
ambassador there in Northern Ireland. Our values for freedom and the 
individual rights are unquestioned, and our second leg of military 
strength and power is unquestioned.
  That third leg, though, the economic leg, is somewhat fractured, 
intentionally --for the simple reason that we sacrificed our economy to 
keep the alliance together in the cold war.
  I was here in those days when we just sort of gave away unfettered 
access to American markets back in the 1950's, 1960's, right on up here 
until now. Today, however, there is a sobering of the American people. 
An overwhelming majority of the American people, according to the 
Business Week that has just come out, oppose fast track because they 
have had enough of this nonsense going on and on and on. Ten years ago 
we had 26 percent of our work force in manufacturing and we are down to 
13 percent. We are not making things.
  Look at the business page of the Wall Street Journal, this morning. 
There is an article entitled--``Remember When Companies Actually 
Created Products.'' Now they don't make things.
  I can see Akio Morita, the former chairman of the board of Sony at a 
seminar in Chicago, IL, in the early 1980's, talking of Third World 
emerging nations, how they could become nation-states. He counseled, in 
order to become a nation-state, they had to have a strong manufacturing 
capacity. He finally pointed over toward me, and he said: ``And that 
world power that loses its manufacturing power will cease to be a world 
power.''
  That is the global competition that this Congress has to wake up and 
listen to. It is competitive free trade. It is not just the 
environment. It is not just the labor rights. It is the overall picture 
of making agreements for the public good.
  Let me get right to just one point, one comment made by my 
distinguished leader from West Virginia reminds me now of the arrogance 
of power.
  As a young Governor back in 1961, I had negotiated a sort of policy 
with respect to textiles. In order to permit the President to 
promulgate a sort of textile trade policy, the law required that you 
had to find the item in question important to our national security.
  We coordinated five Secretaries--Labor, Commerce, State, Defense, and 
Agriculture. And after hearings, we found that textiles was, next to 
steel, the second most important. You could not send the troops to war 
in a Japanese uniform.
  I came over to the White House. There had been leaders in the 
Congress advocating the same kind of policy. For the first time I got 
an inkling of the White House staff. They do not look upon Congress as 
a friend. They look upon Congress as the adversary. They are always 
planning daily for their President to get around Congress or forget 
about Congress or thwart Congress. It is just a mindset.
  This was confirmed later. As a freshman Senator I was allowed to be 
on the policy committee. I was listening to the distinguished senior 
Senator from Arkansas, Senator Fulbright, then chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, talking about the arrogance of power, not just 
that we were trying to impose the American way the world around, but 
how we became involved in the war in Vietnam.
  Our wonderful friend, my hero of long time, Senator Dick Russell of 
Georgia, spoke up and said, ``Well, these Presidents and Vice 
Presidents travel the world around and make all kinds of commitments, 
and then come back here and give us the bill, and Congress is not even 
in on it, and we don't even know what it is, and we have to put the 
money up for it.''
  He said, ``The Vice President has just gone around and promised a 
camel driver something.'' I remember it was when President Johnson was 
the President. Senator Mansfield, the majority leader, turned to 
Senator Russell and said, ``Write that up as a resolution, sort of a 
commitments resolution.'' And Senator Russell had emphysema, and he 
said, ``No. That's really for Senator Fulbright.'' Senator Fulbright 
did it. It did not get far because the stance taken by Senator 
Fulbright in those days was not popular. Later it was taken up by 
Senator Javits. We passed it. The President vetoed the commitments 
resolution, and we overrode the veto. The arrogance of power over at 
the White House.

  Now comes trade. We know you need not have any kind of fast track for 
complicated treaties and agreements. The Salt I treaty--I was here in 
that particular debate. We did not have fast track for that. The 
intermediate missile debate, more recently the Chemical Warfare Treaty, 
nobody said, fast track. But the business community is superimposed. 
They are the multinational policy of money, money, money. They do not 
have the responsibility of the economy. They have the responsibility of 
making money. They do not have to look out for that third leg that I 
spoke of.
  So having been up here with NAFTA, with an undemocratic agreement, 
that certainly has not worked. They said, ``We're going to add jobs.'' 
We have minus jobs. They said, ``We're going to have a surplus in the 
balance of trade,'' We went from plus $5 billion balance to minus $16 
billion balance.
  They said NAFTA would solve other problems. Immigration has gotten 
worse. I can talk at length on these

[[Page S9630]]

things. It was going to solve the drug problem. The drug problem got 
worse.
  But they are still trying, they put up the white tent and they got 
the country's rich to lobby. I have heard from constituents that the 
Business Roundtable has now written their members and said: $100,000 is 
your pledge to come up with. We have already got 60 percent 
performance. We are getting up a multimillion dollar kitty to bamboozle 
that Congress. Put up the white tent and go ahead and make another 
agreement.
  What really nettles the Senator from South Carolina is that while we 
cannot amend, they do. I will never forget, when I was first in the 
State legislature back in the 1940s, they had a Representative Keenan 
from Aiken County who kept running around: ``Big you and little me; big 
you and little me.'' Well, here I am almost 50 years later--``Big you 
and little me''--and what we have is just that, the President coming 
along and saying, ``Here is the agreement. Take it or leave it. And by 
the way, I will amend it in order to get sufficient votes.''
  In NAFTA, let us have a little quick rollcall here. We had the orange 
juice commitment to get the Florida vote. I was talking to that crowd 
and had some votes, I thought, at one time because Castro was selling 
his citrus to Mexico and Mexico was selling their citrus to us. I was 
going to use that, but they made a commitment that it would not occur, 
in order to get the Florida vote.
  Textiles and apparel. I will never forget, I was amazed at one in my 
delegation--a few textile Senators were voting for it for the simple 
reason they promised more customs agents to cut out the over $5 billion 
of transshipments illegally coming into this country. Thousands of 
jobs; $1 billion is for 20,000 jobs; $5 billion is 100,000 jobs. So 
they gave in.
  The Canadian transportation subsidy of durum wheat. That got the 
Northwest and some fellows up there. And then the administration, the 
executive branch, worked on high fructose sugar. They picked up the 
Louisiana vote on that one. Then the snap back for winter vegetables. 
That was a California vote. Peanut butter for Georgia and wine for more 
Californians.
  Oh, they just went around. By the time I went around and tried to 
talk sense, the Congressman or the Senator was put in a position, 
``Well, I'm against this fast track and I'm against this agreement, and 
ordinarily I would vote against the agreement, but I got this, and this 
happens to particularly pertain to my State, so I've got to go along.''
  There were stricter rules of origin for beef imports, domestic 
appliances for Iowa.
  Mr. President, if you did not get in on this, I am giving a rollcall 
here so you can hurry up and get in on the deal.
  Additional purchases of C-17 military cargo. That was down in Texas. 
We had that vote that said, ``Oh, no, we're going to get more C-17's.'' 
So we lost that Congressman. And the Cross Border Development Bank--
there was a Congressman from California that got the Cross Border 
Development Bank. Worker retraining, urban development, a bridge in 
Houston, the Center for the Study of Trade. My friend Jake Pickle, he 
was gone. He got the Center for Trade. That was gone. They gathered 
some votes by scaling back a proposal regarding grazing fees on public 
lands.
  They even considered lowering the proposed increase in cigarette 
taxes to pick up some North Carolina votes. Flat glass for Michigan, 
helium, asparagus, pipe.
  Well, what you have, Mr. President, is just that, the use of patience 
in article I, section 8, of the Constitution. I will never forget 
George Washington's Farewell Address. He said: If in the opinion of the 
people, the distribution or modification of the powers under the 
Constitution be in any particular wrong, let it be changed in the way 
that the Constitution designates. For while you are so patient you may 
in the one instance be the instrument of good, it is the customary 
weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
  What we are finding is the Executive with the arrogance of power 
coming in and superimposing the Business Roundtable, the white tent and 
the minions running around swapping off, wheeling and dealing, so that 
the people generally cannot be heard. It is a disgrace. It is the use 
of patience. And it is an endangerment to our country.
  Fast track. Chile. I said at the time of NAFTA I would agree with a 
free trade agreement with Chile. Chile had the entities of a free 
market--labor rights, due process, property rights. They had a concern 
for the environment, a respected judiciary. They had convicted the 
murderers of Letelier. Mexico had none of that.
  Our distinguished colleague from New York was saying, just bringing 
it into focus, saying ``how can you have free trade when you do not 
even have a free election?'' That is the difference between Chile and 
Mexico. Chile is the one country they have in mind, not the other 
members of the WTO. They do not need fast track to negotiate with 
Chile.
  But this is just their way of doing business so that they will not 
have to fool with the Congress. They make it a take it or leave it 
deal. And giving out the amendments--yes, the Executive can amend, but 
the Congress cannot.
  I say, bring on the treaty and let us vote it up or down. There could 
be an amendment on Chile for wine. We have to take care of that 
industry out on the west coast, some other things of that kind. But 
that isn't the way now of doing business here.
  What we come to do, which is outrageous in and of itself, is actually 
start back from the lowering of the deficits. Fiscal responsibility is 
gone. I will go over that because that is even more important--We 
passed the so-called spending increases and revenue decreases, spending 
increases and tax cuts, and running around all over the Halls of 
Congress calling ``Balance, balance, balance.''
  In less than 2 weeks' time, on September 30, this particular fiscal 
year will terminate and the Congressional Budget Office, on page 35 of 
their recent report, says we will have a deficit not of $36 or $37 
billion as they are trying to write about in the media but a deficit of 
$177 billion.
  Five years out, my distinguished friend, 5 years out, instead of a 
balanced budget agreement and a balanced budget law or reconciliation 
bill, we will have a deficit of $161 billion. During that 5-year 
period, add it up, those deficits, and the Government of the United 
States will spend an additional $1 trillion more than we take in. And 
all the time we are talking about balance. How can you spend $1 
trillion more than you take in, and get to balance? Or how can you 
increase your spending and cut your revenues, at the same time, and say 
``We are going to reduce the deficit and have balance?'' Obviously, you 
cannot.
  It is time we talk sense to the American people. As Adlai Stevenson 
used to say, ``Let's get the facts on top of the table.''
  This fast track is a disgrace. It is in total disregard of the needs 
of the American people. They are out there competing. The productivity 
of the industrial work of the United States is at its highest. What is 
not competing is the Government here in Washington.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________