[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 150 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11513-S11515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               FAST TRACK

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, a few moments ago the majority leader came 
to the floor and filed a cloture motion on what is called the motion to 
proceed to the fast-track trade authority legislation that we will 
consider beginning next week in the U.S. Senate. I want to make comment 
about that, on the issue of fast-track authority.
  It seems to me it does not serve well the interests of this country 
to try to fit into a small crevice, at the end of the first session of 
this Congress with only days left, a debate about international trade.
  What is our situation in trade in this country? Well, it is not a 
very pretty picture. We have the largest trade deficit in the history 
of this country right now. We have huge and growing trade deficits with 
Japan. This year, it is expected to total between $60 billion to $65 
billion. We have a mushrooming trade deficit with China, this year 
expected to reach close to $50 billion. We have an ongoing trade 
deficit with Mexico and Canada. We have a flood of subsidized goods 
coming into our country that I am convinced violates the antidumping 
laws of this country, undercutting our producers and undercutting our 
farmers. Yet, nothing is done about it.
  We are not winning in world trade. First of all, I think we are 
losing because our trade agreements have been negotiated largely as 
foreign policy instruments. Secondly, the trade agreements that do 
exist, which could be beneficial to this country, are not enforced. You 
can point to trade agreement after trade agreement with Japan, for 
example, and discover that no matter what the agreement is, it is not 
complied with by the Japanese and not enforced by the United States.
  The reason I take the time to mention this today is that we face very 
significant trade problems in this country. We have a daunting, growing 
trade deficit which has contributed now in the aggregate to about $2 
trillion in our current accounts deficit. This deficit will be and must 
be repaid at some point in the future with a lower standard of living 
in this country.
  This is the other deficit. We have spent many months and many years 
talking about the budget deficit, and have wrestled that budget deficit 
to the ground. But this other deficit, the trade deficit, is growing. 
Nobody seems to care about that.
  The request comes now to Congress for fast track from the President 
saying: Let us go out and negotiate new trade agreements. I say let's 
solve the trade problems that exist from the old trade agreements 
before we rush off to make new trade agreements.

[[Page S11514]]

  In recent years, we made a free trade agreement with Canada. What 
happened? A flood of Canadian grain has come down our back door, 
undercutting our farmers. This is costing North Dakota alone, according 
to a recent North Dakota State University study, $220 million a year in 
lost revenue. This grain is coming from a state trading enterprise in 
Canada that would be illegal in this country.
  We had a trade agreement with Mexico. Prior to that, we had a $2 
billion trade surplus with Mexico. Now it is apparently a $16 billion 
trade deficit with Mexico. We now import more automobiles from Mexico 
to the United States than we export to all of the rest of the world. A 
recent study by the Economic Policy Institute says that we have lost 
395,000 jobs in America as a result of the trade agreement with Mexico 
and Canada called NAFTA. This trade of ours is not moving in the right 
direction. It is moving in the wrong direction.
  We should have a debate about trade policy, but it ought not be a 
debate that is tried to be fit into a narrow crevasse at the end of 
this session. I will bet as I stand here today that we will see the 
majority leader come to the floor in the days ahead trying to restrict 
amendments, limit amendments and debate, and shortchange the American 
people on the opportunity to have a full, thorough, and thoughtful 
debate about this country's trade policy. Just as sure as I am standing 
here, I know in a matter of 1, 2, 3, or 4 days, we will hear them on 
the floor saying, ``We don't want amendments. We can't have you taking 
up that much time.''
  In fact, when the fast-track trade authority bill was passed out of 
the Senate Finance Committee, I am told it was done in 2 minutes. No 
amendments. Just minutes, no amendments, no debate. That is not the way 
this body ought to deal with the important subject of international 
trade. This is a critically important question to the economic health 
of this country. It is a question of who will have the jobs in the 
future, which economies will grow in the future, and who will have 
opportunity in the years ahead?

  I hope that, as we head toward next week and begin discussing this, 
we can prevail upon the majority leader and others to understand that 
this must be a full debate. I have plenty of amendments I want to 
offer. I know other colleagues have some, and I expect and hope we will 
have that opportunity in the coming week.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator has indicated that the administration wants to 
go out and negotiate additional agreements. What is to keep them from 
it? They have that authority now. They can go out and negotiate. They 
are negotiating now. There is nothing here that anybody is doing to 
keep the administration from negotiating additional agreements, is 
there?
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator is absolutely correct. This administration 
says they have negotiated nearly 200 trade agreements in the last 5 
years--200 of them. Well, why didn't they need fast track to do that? 
Because those agreements were mostly bilateral trade agreements in 
which they weren't trying to change underlying U.S. law. Fast track 
gives them the opportunity to go out someplace with some negotiators 
and close the door, have a negotiation outside the purview of the 
public and propose changing underlying U.S. law. Then fast track says 
when you come back here to the U.S. Senate, nobody, no Member of this 
body, has an opportunity to have a voice in changing that agreement 
that was made behind closed doors.
  Mr. BYRD. So the fast track has to do with the operations here within 
the Senate and the House.
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator is absolutely correct about that.
  Mr. BYRD. The administration has the authority right now to negotiate 
additional agreements and is negotiating additional agreements.
  Mr. DORGAN. That's correct. The administration talks about an 
agreement with Chile. Go negotiate an agreement with Chile. Get an 
airplane ticket for 1 o'clock. You can do that. Nothing prevents a 
negotiation on trade with Chile--not this fast-track authority or lack 
of it. You can negotiate a trade agreement with Chile if you want to.
  But, if you want to change underlying law, you have to bring it back 
to the Congress and get the permission of Congress to do that. The 
Senator makes an important point. There is nothing that prevents trade 
negotiations from occurring without fast-track authority. In fact, the 
administration says it has now completed over 200 trade agreements in 
the last 5 years.
  Mr. BYRD. The fast track means that the Senate and the House are 
supposed to bind and gag themselves and not talk and not offer 
amendments, is that correct?
  Mr. DORGAN. That is the procedure. That is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. No amendments in this body. That is not what the 
Constitution says. The Constitution says that the Senate may offer 
amendments to revenue bills, as on other bills, as on other 
legislation. So that is where the fast track comes in.
  Do we want to bind and gag ourselves and not be able to speak for our 
constituents and speak for our country? Do we want to illuminate the 
listening public as to what is really going on here? Is that what we 
are talking about? Fast track means we will hear nothing, say nothing, 
see nothing, right? We will offer no amendments. We can't do that on 
behalf of our constituents in the next 5 years; is that right? Am I 
right?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes, the Senator is exactly right. Fast-track authority 
means that the Congress says to a President, you negotiate a trade 
treaty or agreement, bring it back to the Congress, and we agree to 
restrict ourselves to be unable to offer any changes or any amendments 
of any kind. That is what the Congress is doing.
  Mr. BYRD. Right.
  Mr. DORGAN. To give you an example of that, they negotiated a trade 
agreement with Canada under fast track. I was then serving in the other 
body on the House Ways and Means Committee, which has 35 votes. They 
brought that trade agreement to the Ways and Means Committee. The vote 
was 34-1 to approve it. I was the only one to vote to disapprove it. We 
weren't able to offer any amendments. It went to the floor of the 
House, and I led the opposition to it. I lost by 20 or 30 votes. No 
amendments.

  Now, what happened in the last 4 or 5 years with Canada? The deficit 
has doubled. We have a flood of this unfairly subsidized grain coming 
in, undercutting our producers. Everybody understands it is unfair 
trade, and you can't do a thing about it. We have folks that crow about 
it from time to time, but they don't lift a finger to do anything about 
it.
  That is what is wrong with these kinds of procedures. We should have 
been able to amend that treaty to make sure that if a trade agreement 
with Canada is contemplated, we have the ability to solve a problem if 
a problem exists. But they have pulled all the teeth now, so there are 
no teeth in this ability to reconcile and deal with problems. Now we 
have these trade agreements where the deficits keep ratcheting up. We 
have unfair competition for our producers, and jobs are leaving our 
country. As I said 395,000 jobs left our country to Mexico and Canada. 
It doesn't make any sense for us to tie our hands in this way.
  Mr. BYRD. In a manner, this is just a continuation of the siphoning 
off of the legislative powers, as we saw in the Line-Item Veto Act. It 
was siphoned away. As a matter of fact, we just gave legislative power 
to the President. Aside from that subject, that is what is being done 
here. We are being asked to give up the people's power under the 
Constitution to legislate, to amend, and to debate. In other words, we 
are just to buy a pig in a poke and are not even supposed to look 
inside the poke --just rubberstamp whatever the administration sends up 
here.
  Mr. DORGAN. But we know there is a pig in the poke.
  Mr. BYRD. There is something in the poke; I am not sure what is in 
the poke. But I am not willing to bind and gag myself. I will be forced 
to do that, of course; they will do that, but we will be kicking and 
screaming.
  This administration wants more and more power, and other 
administrations have been the same. They have all been the same in 
wanting this fast track. But I compliment the Senator. I salute him for 
leading this fight. I am opposed

[[Page S11515]]

to fast track, and I will be there when the roll is called. I thank the 
Senator.
  I ask unanimous consent that the time I have taken of the Senator's 
10 minutes not be charged against the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia has long 
been concerned and interested in international trade. I very much value 
and appreciate his support. It is not the case that the Senator from 
West Virginia, myself, and others, who believe that fast track is 
inappropriate and our trade strategy has not worked believe we should 
put walls around our country or restrict international trade. I think 
we ought to expand it.
  I say this to those folks who talk about fast track: If you want to 
be fast about something, do something fast, put on your Speedo trunks 
and do something quickly, and start to quickly solve the trade problems 
we have. I can cite a dozen of them that undercut American jobs and 
American producers, workers, and farmers. If you want to be fast about 
something, let's be fast about starting to solve a few of these 
problems.
  Just demonstrate that you can solve one; it doesn't have to be all of 
them. Demonstrate that this country has the nerve and will to stand up 
and say to other countries: If our market is open to you, then your 
market has to be open to us. We pledge to you that we will be involved 
in fair trade with you. We demand and insist that you be involved with 
fair trade practices with us. If not, this country has the will and the 
nerve to take action.
  That is all I ask. If you want to be fast, don't come around here 
with fast track, come around with fast action to solve trade problems. 
Show me that you can solve one of them just once. Then let's talk about 
trade once again.

  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the introduction of S. 1357 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

                          ____________________