[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 151 (Monday, November 3, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11577-S11579]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  FAIRY TALES OF FAST TRACK: THE MYTH OF TRADE NEGOTIATIONS PARALYSIS

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to speak this morning on the subject: 
the ``fairy tales of fast track: the myth of trade negotiations 
paralysis.''
  It has been said that if one wants a lie to stick, just keep 
repeating it, keep shouting it, until it just seems to become a 
reality. On the matter of fast-track procedures for congressional 
handling of trade agreements, we have a whopper being shouted from the 
housetops in congressional testimony and on the op-ed pages of our 
leading newspapers by people who surely ought to know better. An 
example of what I am talking about appears in the Washington Post 
today, authored by our esteemed former colleague and former Senate 
Republican leader, Mr. Bob Dole, who engages in vacuous, vapid

[[Page S11578]]

vaporings in insisting that other nations will not play ball with us on 
trade if they think Congress is going to take a close look at what is 
negotiated, and, Heaven forbid, even have an opportunity to consider 
amendments to trade agreements negotiated by the administration.
  Here is what Mr. Dole says, in part:

       The fate of fast-track legislation this fall may determine 
     whether the President ever will negotiate another trade 
     agreement.

  Let us take a look again at that profound statement by Mr. Dole:

       The fate of fast-track legislation this fall may determine 
     whether the President ever will negotiate another trade 
     agreement.

  Now, there is an assertion. One might get the idea that fast-track 
consideration of trade agreements is normal practice, and that it is 
the normal practice in considering trade agreements, Mr. President. 
But, fast-track consideration of trade agreements is as rare as hen's 
teeth. It has been done all of only five times since the first very 
limited fast-track authority was granted by the Congress in 1974. So, 
in nearly a quarter of a century, we have used fast-track consideration 
all of five times on this floor.
  Can anyone guess how many trade agreements have been negotiated in 
that quarter of a century? The answer is, of course, hundreds--
hundreds. We have had fast track on this Senate floor five times in a 
little over 23 years, but in the meantime, hundreds of trade agreements 
have been negotiated. And the Clinton administration, as a matter of 
fact, is quite fond of boasting of its record of entering into some 200 
trade agreements, none of them subject to fast track except the GATT 
and NAFTA trade pacts.
  The other clarion call that we hear repeatedly from the 
administration, repeated by Mr. Dole again this morning, is the issue 
of American leadership. The United States must lead in the global 
economy and if Congress wants to review and possibly amend trade 
agreements, that's the end of that.
  Here is what Mr. Dole says:

       Global trade is inevitable, and Presidential fast-track 
     authority is indispensable if America is to lead the 
     community of nations into the next century.

  Another quite profound statement; and mind-boggling, indeed. I would 
suspect that we are going to be talking about American leadership a lot 
this week, as the Senate reviews the need for fast-track authority that 
has been requested by the administration.
  If a trade agreement is soundly negotiated and if it would be clearly 
beneficial to America, I think it is a pretty fair guess that the 
Senate will approve it without any amendment; without even the threat 
of an amendment. But the threat of amendments should prove valuable as 
additional leverage for administration negotiators on trade matters. 
Some of these negotiations are pretty tough, and I should think that 
the Senate's careful role in reviewing the product can be used to 
advantage. I do not think it hurts American leadership for our trading 
partners--some of whom are trading adversaries when they do not 
implement in good faith the agreements they sign with us and continue 
to restrict access to their markets for American goods--to know that 
the U.S. Senate is looking over their shoulders. It could be useful 
bargaining leverage, and if I were negotiating an agreement I certainly 
think it would be advantageous to have the weight of future Senate 
scrutiny to dangle over the head of a tough bargainer on the other side 
of the table.
  The third point that our good friend Mr. Dole makes is that somehow 
our trade negotiators are cooling their heels and waiting for the 
Senate to give assured protection to their products before beginning 
their negotiations. Mr. Dole says:

       Some may ask why it matters whether other countries beat us 
     in securing trade pacts with developing nations. What are we 
     waiting for?

  Now, there is a profound question: What are we waiting for? Mr. Dole 
suggests that the Senate is holding up negotiations. And nothing could 
be further from the truth. The administration already has authority 
given to it in law to negotiate trade pacts. This negotiating authority 
was most recently provided by the Congress in the 1994 GATT agreement, 
or Uruguay round, and it is good into the next century.
  I do not notice any crippling of the administration's negotiating 
authority or of its ability to successfully conclude trade agreements 
without the use of fast track. At the moment, the United States has 
been negotiating a so-called multilateral agreement on investment, MAI, 
for 2 years, which is now 90 percent or more complete, with strong 
American leadership and without the assurance of fast-track 
legislation. It is unclear whether the administration intends to try to 
get this agreement approved by the Congress under new fast-track 
approval legislation. Nevertheless, this immensely complicated and very 
important multilateral agreement has been negotiated without the 
benefit--without the benefit of a promise of the Senate's pulling a 
black bag of no amendment guarantees over its head.
  I think we need an analysis of all the trade agreements concluded by 
the administration. Let's take a look at the scorecard. Let's see if 
Mr. Dole is right that without the Senate's passing the new Export 
Expansion and Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1997, all is lost--all 
is lost. Let's try to determine if the Founding Fathers were completely 
off the mark when they gave to the Congress authority over the 
regulation of commerce with foreign nations in article I, section 8--
article I, section 8, of the Constitution, dealing with the powers of 
the Congress. The Founding Fathers did not want the President to have 
this authority, because our Founding Fathers' memories were not short 
indeed and the Founding Fathers were not at all enamored with the idea 
of a President of the United States gathering authority unto himself 
like they had experienced with King George III of England. So this 
exclusive power was not centered on the legislative branch by whim or 
by fancy. There were weighty considerations of a system founded on 
carefully balanced powers.

  Therefore, let's not get stampeded by all the alarm bells, all of the 
Roman candles, all of the fire crackers of lost American leadership, of 
preposterous assertions about the behavior of our trading partners if 
we don't steer our constitutional system further in the direction of 
executive power. The scaremongers say that the Sun rises in the west. I 
don't believe it. I don't believe the Sun rises at the western end of 
Constitution Avenue. If it does, that's a very recent phenomenon.
  If our trading partners truly want to make market arrangements for 
new flows of goods and services with the United States, we certainly 
have learned that they will do so, even in the reality of scrutiny of 
the Congress over those deals. That has not stopped any country or 
group of countries from negotiating with us to date. So why should it 
happen now? Let us not shortchange ourselves. Don't belittle ourselves. 
Let's not lose confidence in ourselves. This is America, the engine of 
world growth; the largest market, the most coveted market in the world! 
It is embarrassing and it is wrong to say that the role of the Congress 
is standing in the way of success, damaging to our world leadership, or 
an obstacle to getting good agreements. And it is absolutely 
preposterous to maintain that other nations will not negotiate with us 
if we follow our constitutional system.
  If trade agreements are in the national interests of other nations, 
they will be at the table. They will be at the table, in my judgment, 
Congress or no Congress. Now, when was the last time that Congress 
rejected a trade agreement or emasculated it beyond further 
international consideration? These arguments put forth by the 
administration, and dutifully repeated--dutifully repeated by our 
distinguished former Republican leader, are just a pretext for not 
going through the rigors of defending such agreements, and all parts 
thereof, before the elected representatives of the people who are going 
to be subjected to them, certainly affected by them, and who will 
perhaps pay for them.
  I hope that the Senate will have an informed, lengthy, robust debate 
on trade this week. It is high time that the Senate talked about such 
agreements; high time that the Senate talked about the trade deficits 
that we are experiencing.
  My distinguished and informed and most learned colleague, Byron 
Dorgan, has been talking about this from time to time over the long 
weeks and

[[Page S11579]]

months. I have seen him bring charts into the Chamber. I have heard him 
discuss the shortsightedness of our negotiators and how we continually 
let ourselves be taken to the cleaners in trade negotiations.
  So I hope that we will have a good debate on trade this week because, 
as I say, it's high time that the Senate talked about the trade 
deficits we are experiencing, about the barriers that exist for access 
to foreign markets and about the real advantages and disadvantages of 
trade for our economy.
  Mr. President, so much for the vacuous, vapid vaporings of those who 
would have us steer away from the constitutional authority of the 
Congress and go down that road that we have been traveling on for so 
long--of taking a beating in trade negotiations.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article by former 
Senator Bob Dole be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, this article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Nov. 3, 1997]

                  Get Back to the Fast Track on Trade

                             (By Bob Dole)

       As Congress rushes to complete its work and adjourn this 
     week, I have found myself in the unusual position of urging 
     my former colleagues to stay--at least until they pass 
     legislation giving fast-track trade negotiating authority to 
     President Clinton.
       During my tenure in the Senate, I often made the point that 
     we could do more good by going home and listening to our 
     constituents than by staying in Washington. But the decision 
     to give the president fast-track authority is urgent and must 
     be made now. The initial steps already have been taken in 
     both Houses. Now it is up to the president, his 
     administration and congressional leaders to make the case for 
     passage.
       Very simply, passing fast track is the right thing to do. 
     Our nation's future prosperity--the good jobs that will 
     provide a living for our children and grandchildren--will be 
     created through international trade. Members have recognized 
     this reality, on a bipartisan basis, for more than 20 years, 
     giving fast-track authority to every president from Gerald 
     Ford to George Bush.
       Today it is more apparent than ever that the debate between 
     advocates of free trade and protectionism is over. Global 
     trade is a fact of life rather than a policy position. That 
     is why we cannot cede leadership in developing markets to our 
     competitors through inaction, thereby endangering America's 
     economic future and abandoning our responsibility to lead as 
     the sole remaining superpower.
       During Chinese President Jiang Zemin's visit, it has been 
     instructive to look at China's efforts to expand its export 
     markets and international influence, not just in Asia but in 
     our own back yard. China has targeted Argentina, Brazil, 
     Chile, Mexico and Venezuela as ``strategic priorities'' to 
     develop bilateral trade. While our elected leaders continue 
     to ponder whether we will be fully engaged in the global 
     economy, China is moving forward to reach free-trade 
     agreements giving Chinese goods and services a significant 
     tariff advantage that will eliminate the U.S. edge in 
     productivity and proximity. The European Union also is 
     working with the Mercosur trading block (Argentina, Brazil, 
     Paraguay, Uruguay and associate members Chile and Bolivia) to 
     create a partnership that will exclude the United States and 
     favor European products.
       Latin American countries are negotiating bilateral and 
     multilateral agreements at a rate that will make it 
     unnecessary for them to wait for the United States. In a 
     region that is projected to be the United States' largest 
     market in just a few years, exceeding $200 billion in trade 
     by 2002, we are allowing competitors to eliminate our natural 
     advantage. If this trend continues without any action on our 
     part, we will soon need Latin America as a trading partner 
     more than it needs us.
       Emboldened by our inaction, French President Jacques Chirac 
     recently declared, ``Latin America's essential economic 
     interests . . . lie not with the United States but with 
     Europe.'' His comments are indicative of the growing belief 
     that the United States lacks the political will to seize the 
     lead in trade with developing nations. We must prove Chirac 
     and other of like mind wrong.
       Some may ask why it matters whether other countries beat us 
     in securing trade pacts with developing nations. A better 
     question, however, is: What are we waiting for?
       Global leadership has enormous benefits--it increases our 
     security and creates a multiplier effect for our exports. 
     When we lead, the world accepts our way of doing business and 
     our industrial standards, which, in turn, increases U.S. 
     sales abroad. If China or the European Union beat us into 
     developing markets, they will set the rules by which trade is 
     conducted and influence the evolution of industry in fast-
     growing countries to their benefit.
       Given that 96 percent of the world's consumers live outside 
     the United States and that the global economy will grow at 
     three times the rate of the U.S. economy, it is a certainty 
     that many of tomorrow's high-paying American jobs will be 
     created through exports. Every $1 billion in new American 
     exports creates 15,000 to 20,000 American jobs. And, already, 
     more than a quarter of our economic growth and more than 10 
     million jobs are the direct result of overseas trade.
       In order to honestly and thoroughly consider fast track, 
     each member of Congress must recognize that the president 
     still must consult with Congress in negotiating trade deals 
     and that no agreement will go into effect without being 
     passed by a majority in both houses of Congress. Fast track 
     is a vote on process, not on substance. It would be a 
     travesty for the leader of the greatest nation on earth not 
     to be free to negotiate with his counterparts as an equal.
       The president also needs to lead on this issue. As the 
     leader of his party, as well as our nation, President Clinton 
     must step up his efforts to persuade fellow Democrats to 
     support this initiative. Fast track will not pass the House 
     with a few dozen votes from the minority: We need an all-out 
     presidential push. The fate of fast track legislation this 
     fall may determine whether the president ever will negotiate 
     another trade agreement.
       The private sector--the companies that will create new jobs 
     based on exports--also must make more forcefully the case to 
     the American public and Congress that passing fast-track 
     legislation is vital to America's continued economic growth.
       If Congress fails to pass fast-track legislation before 
     adjourning for the year, the danger is that, because of 
     election-year politics in 1998, it will not pass until the 
     106th Congress in 1999--or even 2001, after the next 
     presidential election. By then, the working people of America 
     will have lost unnecessarily.
       Global trade is inevitable, and presidential fast-track 
     authority is indispensable if America is to lead the 
     community of nations into the next century.
       Now is the time for the president and Congress to work 
     together and pass fast-track legislation.
       (The writer is former Senate majority leader and the 
     Republican nominee for president in 1996.)

                          ____________________