[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 153 (Wednesday, November 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11711-S11715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENT OF 1997--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard.). The clerk will report the motion 
to proceed.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows;

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 1269, a bill 
     to establish objectives for negotiating and procedures for 
     implementing certain trade agreements.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the motion to proceed.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senate, as I understand it, will be 
voting in about 50 minutes on the confirmation of a judge. Between now 
and that time, there will be time for debate on the motion to proceed 
to the fast-track legislation, and I intend to take a few minutes of 
that time. I believe Senator Wellstone will be here as well to speak. I 
wanted to begin, again, discussing this question because there seems to 
be a substantial amount of misinformation and there is a substantial 
misimpression by many people about what this debate is.
  I started yesterday by saying this debate is not about whether we 
should have free trade or expanded trade or more trade. It is not about 
that. I think we should have expanded trade. I think we should lower 
barriers, lower tariffs--in fact, eliminate barriers, lower tariffs, 
and have a world in which we have more opportunity to trade. It's not 
about those who believe in trade and those who don't. It is a debate 
about whether our current trade strategy is working for this country. 
Does the current trade strategy work? Or is this country embarking on a 
trade strategy and are we in the middle of a trade strategy that, in 
recent years, has failed us, hurt our economy, injured our 
manufacturing base, has moved American jobs overseas and put us in a 
weaker position? I happen to think that is the case.
  I want to go through some of this to describe why I am concerned 
about not just this fast-track proposal, but our trade policy 
generally. Mr. President, this is a chart that shows our net export 
balance. All of this red below the line represents deficits. We have 
had the largest net export deficits in the history of this country for 
3 years in a row, and this year will make it the fourth year in a row. 
These are the largest trade deficits in the history of this country.
  Now, I would ask the question of those trotting out here supporting 
the current trade strategy and saying, ``let's again pass fast-track 
trade authority.'' Is this going in the right direction? Is this the 
right trade strategy? Is this producing the right results? If so, where 
do you intend to go with this? Do you want to take the chart out here 
and go down to $350 billion a year in net trade deficits, as some are 
predicting will happen? Because if you think this is working, the 
logical extension of this is larger and larger deficits.
  We are now the largest debtor nation in the world, and a significant 
part of that debt comes from the contributions of these trade deficits. 
So if you think the current trade strategy is working real well and you 
like this chart and you love debt, then you need to be out here saying, 
gee, let's pass fast track and continue doing what we are doing because 
it is really good for this country.
  Now, Mr. President, I have said before that I used to teach 
economics, briefly, in college. But I was able to overcome that 
experience and go on to do other things in life. I am told that in the 
old days in ancient China, those who would travel from one region to 
another giving advice of the type we now get from economists had to be 
careful about it. That is because if they gave the wrong advice and 
stuck around the province too long and it was discovered what they had 
suggested would happen didn't happen, they were boiled, cut in two, or 
put on the sides of two chariots and pulled apart. We have no such 
dilemma posed to the economists of today.
  Economists of today tell us what they think, for example, on trade. 
They say if you pass a trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, we will 
substantially increase American jobs. We passed a trade agreement with 
Canada and Mexico, called NAFTA, and we lost 395,000 American jobs. 
Where are the economists who predicted these enormous gains for our 
country? They are off predicting the results of fast-track and new 
trade agreements. It's just fine for them to keep predicting, despite 
the fact that they are consistently wrong.

  The components of this country's economy are personal consumption--
you see where that is. That is personal consumption and expenditures. 
That is one component. There is gross private domestic investment. 
Then, we have Government expenditures and investments. The fourth 
component of this economy is the balance of net exports. Now, if you 
look at this chart, is this balance of net exports a net positive or a 
net negative? This shows red. Why? Because it is a net negative. It is 
a drag on our economy. It pulls our economy down, not lifts it up.
  So when the President or Members of the Senate come to this Chamber 
and say, gee, we are doing so well, we have more exports and we are 
doing so well, and it boosts our economy, they are dead flat wrong. 
They would not pass the beginner's course in economics, preaching that 
message, because net exports and the current balance of net exports is 
a drag on our economy. It is not a contribution to our economy.
  In fact, yesterday, somebody said, well, since we have negotiated the 
agreement with Mexico under NAFTA, we now get more cars into Mexico 
that are produced in the United States.

[[Page S11712]]

 That is true, we do. It is absolutely true. Conclusion: Was it a good 
agreement for our country? No, not at all. While we get a few more cars 
into Mexico, they send far more cars into the United States. So the net 
balance of auto trade between the United States and Mexico is 
completely out of kilter. In fact, we now import more cars from Mexico 
than the United States exports to the entire rest of the world. So the 
next time somebody stands up and talks about automobiles, and talks 
about what a great deal it is in terms of automobile trade with Mexico, 
I say tell the whole story. If you are describing a checkbook, don't 
just stand here and crow about the deposits. Tell us about the 
withdrawals. Tell the whole story.

  So, Mr. President, the circumstances of trade are this. We are 
involved in a great deal of international trade. I support that. I 
insist that trade be fair to our country, to our producers, to our 
businesses, and to our workers. And, it is not fair. We don't have the 
nerve and will to require it be fair with China, with Japan, with 
Mexico--yes, with Canada. That is the problem. The result is huge 
deficits.
  This chart shows that the imports of manufactured goods now in this 
country equal 51 percent of our total manufacturing in America. Just 16 
or 18 years ago it was down to about 25 percent of our manufacturing 
base. Now imports equal over 50 percent of our manufacturing base.
  Is that moving in the right direction? I don't think so.
  Here is a chart that shows all of the fast-track authority that we 
have given Presidents. When the Tokyo round took effect, we had a $28 
billion trade deficit at that point. We had fast track for the United 
States-Canada Free Trade Agreement. When it took effect we had a $115 
billion trade deficit. We gave fast track for NAFTA. At that point we 
had a $166 billion trade deficit. Then we gave fast track to the 
Uruguay round. Then, we were up to $173 billion in trade deficits. Now 
we are at $191 billion in net merchandise trade deficits.
  It is going to go higher. Do people think we are moving in the right 
direction? I have no idea what town they grew up in. They think this is 
success. It is not success. It is burdening this country with an 
obligation this country must repay. This country will repay and must 
repay nearly $2 trillion of accumulated net trade deficits with a lower 
standard of living in our future. That is not conjecture. It must be 
done because other people now have claims in the form of American 
dollars against our future.
  Let me talk for just a moment about one of the more recent 
agreements, the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement. I talked 
about the descriptions of the NAFTA agreement. I have told previously 
of the folks in ancient Rome who used to predict the future. We now 
call them economists. They used to call them augurs. It was the 
practice of augury. The practice of augury was to read the flight of 
birds, and evaluate the entrails of cattle, among other things, in 
order to portend the future. In our country we have economists. They 
tell us, on the one hand, and on the other hand. That is why Harry 
Truman said that he preferred a one-armed economist. Then they could 
tell us with one hand. What did the economists tell us with respect to 
NAFTA? They said if we would pass NAFTA with Canada and Mexico, we 
would have nearly 400,000--I guess 250,000, first, and some said 
350,000 --new jobs in America. NAFTA was passed. What we lost was 
167,000 jobs to Canada, according to the Economic Policy Institute, and 
227,000 jobs to Mexico.
  Is that moving in the right direction? Not where I come from. We were 
told the trade that would come into our country from Mexico would be 
the product of low-skilled labor. What are the largest imports into the 
United States from Mexico? Automobiles, automobile parts, and 
electronics. That is not the product of low-skilled labor.
  This last chart shows that the United States has become the world's 
largest debtor nation. It might not matter to people here. I don't see 
people coming into the Chamber worried about this. Three or four of us 
talk from time to time about the growing trade deficit. To most people 
it doesn't seem to matter. They say, ``Look at the cars we send to 
Mexico. Isn't that a wonderful thing?''
  They come here and talk about the deposit slips in their checkbook. 
They don't talk about the expenditures. The net balance of trade has 
been negative for our country, and growing worse. It is causing 
substantial trouble in our country. The question is: Will we solve 
this? Will someone decide this is not good for our country and decide 
to solve it? Need it be solved by starting a trade war? Should it be 
solved by putting walls around our country and describing ourselves as 
protectionists? No, I don't think so. That is not the point. That is 
not what we are here arguing.

  The point we are debating is that those who come here with this 
mantra chant of ``free trade''--just a mantra chant. You are either for 
free trade, or you are some xenophobic isolationist stooge who doesn't 
understand it. You just do not understand what the world has become. 
You are either for free trade, and you, therefore, understand all of 
the implications of that, or you just don't get it. You are for free 
trade, or you are a blatant protectionist, and shame on you. We are 
going to call you ``Smoot and Hawley.'' That is the way this debate 
moves very quickly. Almost, instantaneously, it moves into that kind of 
a discussion.
  The discussion that ought to be among all of is this. We now have the 
largest merchandise trade deficit in the history of this country. Is it 
good for this country? The answer is no. The question is, What will we 
do about it? Does anyone here have a plan to deal with this growing, 
mushrooming trade deficit that hurts this country? Anybody? Has anybody 
heard anybody come to the floor of the Senate who chants this mantra of 
free trade who says anything about dealing with these mushrooming 
deficits? Or is it for them just the act of chanting that satisfies 
their soul? Is it just the act of chanting that satisfies their desire 
to serve?
  One would hope that those who come to the floor talking about the 
need for expanded trade--not with some chant--with some thoughtful 
analysis of this country's needs would also understand the need for 
balanced trade and the need for fair trade, and the demand that when we 
say to our trading partners, ``You are strong, tough, worthy 
competitors of ours in the international marketplace, and we demand of 
you fair free trade.''
  As a nation, we need to say to China, ``We demand of you that if you 
access the American marketplace and we will allow you to continue to do 
that, but when you do it you have a responsibility to this country. 
That responsibility is to open your marketplace to our goods.'' Don't 
tell us that you want to flood our marketplace with Chinese goods and 
then keep China's marketplace largely closed to American goods. Don't 
tell us that you want us to be your cash cow for hard currency, China, 
and you want to ship all of your goods to our country. But when it 
comes time to play by the book and compete, don't displace America as 
the largest wheat seller to China. That is not what we expect of a 
mutually beneficial trade relationship.
  We need to say to Japan, ``Don't tell us that you want a $60 billion 
a year trade surplus and deficit with us every year as far as the eye 
can see. Don't tell us you want to access our marketplace and then tell 
us we can't get American goods into yours.''
  That is not fair trade in any town in this country. And we ought to 
expect on behalf of the American economy and the American people and 
American workers and producers that we demand fair trade treatment from 
our allies and our trading partners.
  Canada--we had a free trade agreement with Canada. We had an $11 
billion trade deficit with Canada. We passed a free trade agreement. 
Now, the trade deficit has more than doubled.
  In my part of the country we have a flood of unfairly subsidized 
Canadian grain coming through the borders. It is a virtual flood. It is 
sent to this country by a state trading enterprise called the Canadian 
Wheat Board. That would be illegal here in America. It has secret 
pricing. No one knows the price. It is sold by a state trading 
enterprise. That is a monopoly enterprise. The result is an avalanche 
of Canadian grain coming in undercutting our market and undercutting 
our farmers. It is patently unfair. And, we can't do a thing about it

[[Page S11713]]

because it is in the trade agreements that were negotiated with Canada. 
Those negotiations were done in secret, behind closed doors. These 
secret negotiations pulled the rug out from under our producers. So now 
when trade is patently unfair you still cannot stop it.
  I ask someone to come to the Senate floor today or tomorrow and tell 
us what you propose to do to demand that Canada stop that flood of 
unfairly subsidized grain. What do you propose to do to demand that?
  What do you propose to do to demand that China open its markets? What 
do you propose to do to demand China open its markets completely to 
American imports when it buys airplanes made and manufactured in the 
United States of America rather than demanding that it wants United 
States airplanes manufactured in China?
  What do you intend to do to say to Japan that the trade agreement 10 
years ago with them on beef represents the lowest expectations of trade 
behavior that this country has? We negotiated trade on beef. And even 
our cattlemen jumped for joy because we finally reached an agreement 
with Japan on beef. Guess what the agreement is? There remains nearly a 
50-percent tariff on all American beef getting into Japan. Is that a 
fair agreement? No. It represents the lowest expectations we have of 
our abilities to require our trading partners to treat us fairly. We 
still have a nearly 50-percent tariff on American beef going into 
Japan.
  What on Earth are we doing? Why is this country lacking the nerve and 
the will to stand up to our trading partners and say to them, ``Here is 
a mirror; treat us fairly because we are going to treat you like you 
treat us?'' From our trade standpoint, our leadership is ready for us 
to say our market is open to you. We lead in the spirit of free and 
fair trade. We lead in the spirit of expanded trade. But, we demand 
more of our trading partners. We demand that our trading partners 
provide opportunities to American producers, American businesses, and 
American workers to access your marketplace just as you access ours.
  Is this all theory? No, it is not all theory. Those who come to the 
floor and talk about free trade will talk in the abstract all day long. 
But what this is about is who will have the jobs and the economic 
growth and the opportunity 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, and 50 years 
from now.
  I have no quarrel with those who come to the floor of the Senate and 
say that our future is in global trade. We have a global economy. Our 
future requires expansion of trade opportunities. I have no quarrel 
with those who have read the economic textbooks that describe the 
doctrine of comparative advantage, and the teachings of Ricardo, and 
others, who describe a world in which some can more appropriately 
produce one product and others can more appropriately raise one 
commodity. To the extent there are natural advantages to each, they 
should trade with each other. That becomes the doctrine of comparative 
advantage. Each does what it is their advantage to do and, therefore, 
trade with each other. I have no quarrel with that.
  Of course, when Ricardo wrote that, incidentally, there was only 
nation-to-nation trading. There were no corporations when that doctrine 
was described. It is not the same now when the doctrine is interpreted 
to mean that a comparative advantage is a political advantage rather 
than a natural advantage, a natural resource advantage, or some sort of 
production advantage.
  What is a political comparative advantage? A political advantage is a 
government over in some recess of the world when it describes the 
conditions of its production as a method of production in which you can 
hire 12-year-olds and pay them 12 cents an hour, and you can dump the 
pollution into the air and the water, and you can work the kids in 
unsafe factories. There is a political advantage in which that kind of 
production is acceptable and tolerated, and produces the commodities 
that are then traded in the international marketplace. But, that has 
nothing to do with the doctrine of comparative advantage. Absolutely 
nothing.
  The question I asked yesterday about trade is one this country needs 
to continue to ask. Is there a requirement for admission to the 
American marketplace which, incidentally, has no substitute on the face 
of this globe. There are more people in other countries. China has far 
more people than we. But there is no substitute to having access to the 
American marketplace.
  Is there any admission to the American marketplace? I am not talking 
about cash, or paying money to access the American marketplace. I ask 
is there an admission price at all? Will the admission price be, for 
example, a requirement that you not employ 8-year-olds or 10- or 12-
year-olds to produce in a production factory and work them 12 hours a 
day and pay them little or nothing?
  Could we at least start way back right at the first step and say, 
``Well, at least we will not accept the production of prison labor from 
a foreign country to come into our country and have the socks that are 
produced in a foreign prison hanging on a discount wall for sale to the 
American public?''
  So we must decide what is right. We should not allow the work of 
foreign prisoners to come into our country because clearly that is 
unfair trade. So then let's step up the chain a bit, and ask ourselves: 
If not from foreign prisons--and I think most of us would agree that is 
certainly not fair trade--what about foreign factories that hire young 
kids, young children? I mentioned 12-year-olds. How about 8-year-olds? 
How about 250 million children producing around the world? Is there 
something that we find difficult in this country in our trade 
relationship in saying to another country, ``Look, you have to meet 
certain standards?''
  We are not demanding you pay the same minimum wage they pay in 
Pittsburgh or Denver. We are not demanding that. But you have to meet 
some standards in order to access our marketplace because we don't 
believe American producers who risk their money to build their plant, 
hire their workers, and then manufacture their goods ought to have to 
compete against someone who manufactures the same product for one-
hundredth of the price or one-twentieth of the price because they don't 
have the responsibility to deal with air pollution and water pollution, 
child labor laws, and safe workplaces, minimum wages, and all of those 
kind of things.
  Is there any standard that represents some standard of behavior that 
we expect in being able to access the American marketplace? Or is this 
a circumstance where we have decided that those corporations, the 
largest in the world who are now international corporations--not 
national enterprises but international corporations--have decided that 
the expectation they have of this system is to be able to look at their 
corporation and evaluate where in this world can they produce most 
cheaply. Where can they produce least expensively? Where can they 
produce it, and then where can they ship that product to the most 
affluent marketplace and therefore expect maximum profit?

  Is that the construct of this new system, the new global economy? Buy 
a Gulfstream; travel around the world; look out the window and find 
where could you produce with the least possible expense? What corner is 
it? Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Bangladesh? What corner of the world is it 
that would allow you to take that manufacturing plant that you have in 
Ithaca, NY, shut it down, fire the workers, move it overseas, and 
produce at the least possible cost, paying the least amount of money, 
having a factory that has the least compliance with air and water 
pollution, no bother about worker safety issues, and so on, no OSHA, 
and then produce the same product and ship it back to Ithaca to be sold 
on the hardware store shelf? Is that the construct?
  I am afraid that is what most of our institutional discussion has 
been in this country about, the new global reality. The new global 
reality is we should not worry about what percent of the manufacturing, 
in terms of our consumption, is done in the United States. We should 
not worry about our manufacturing base. We should not worry about 
whether we have a strong manufacturing base. What we should worry about 
is consumption. How are we doing as consumers?
  I suppose we are doing fine as consumers. We have ample credit cards 
available. In fact, just wait at home today and open your mail box. You 
will get another invitation for 10 more, preapproved, with substantial 
limit,

[[Page S11714]]

and if you are lucky, you can go to a discount store somewhere and 
probably buy something that was produced in a country that used kids to 
produce it, produced it less expensively, and you might--not always, 
but you might--be able as a consumer to purchase it less expensively at 
the expense of a diminished manufacturing base in this country, at the 
expense of a larger trade deficit, and at the expense of a lower 
standard of living later when this country will have to reconcile these 
huge and growing trade deficits.
  Mr. President, let me end where I began. I know Senator Wellstone 
from Minnesota is waiting to speak. I started today by asking the 
question, can someone come to this Chamber in the next day or so and 
look at this ocean of red ink, of net trade deficits that are growing 
worse year after year after year, not better--can someone come here 
today, someone who thinks we are on the right path, who wants us to 
keep doing what we are doing and tell me how they believe this 
represents success? How do they believe this contributes to this 
country's well-being?
  If they believe, as I do, that this ocean of red ink has made this 
country the largest debtor nation on Earth and it is destructive to 
this country's best interests. Then I say, let's in the coming hours 
talk about what we can do to fix this and don't tell me more of the 
same because that's what you are saying: We want more of the same.
  This is what has happened. We have big, big deficits, getting worse. 
``Let's keep doing more of the same,'' they say. I say, let's change. 
Let's expect more and demand more of our trading partners. Let's have 
open foreign markets. Let's have the nerve and the will to stand up for 
this country's economic interests, and let's not move quickly to the 
thoughtless debate that this is between those who support free trade 
and those who do not.
  That is not what this is about. It is about those of us who believe 
this country has an abiding and growing trade problem and is choking on 
trade deficits and must stand up and do something about it for this 
country's sake and those who believe things are just fine and we ought 
to keep doing more of what we have been doing. That is what the debate 
is about.
  I will have more to say. Let me yield such time as he may consume to 
the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from North 
Dakota for his very important leadership in what is really a historic 
debate.

  Let me say at the beginning that I don't think this is a debate where 
two positions are either we have walls that we put on the border of our 
country or we are involved in an international economy. We are a part 
of an international economy.
  That's a false dichotomy. The question is, Are there any rules that 
go with this?
  Let me, first of all, start out with one of the major reasons I 
oppose the motion to proceed to S. 1269, this reciprocal trade 
agreement of 1997.
  I oppose it on the principle of democracy and representative 
accountability alone. I am opposed to fast track for that reason alone. 
It seems to me that we ought to understand that what we are talking 
about is a trade agreement which will crucially affect the quality or 
lack of quality of lives of the people that all of us represent, that 
will affect our domestic laws, everything in the world to do with wage 
levels, with consumer protection, with environmental protection, and it 
is difficult for me to understand how we could surrender our rights as 
Senators to an unlimited debate and the right to amendments to an 
important piece of legislation, indeed, to some legislation that will 
come before us, other agreements that will come before us up to the 
year 2001 that we have not even seen. Before we have even seen these 
agreements, we are supposed to agree to a procedure whereby we can't 
come to the floor and fight for the people we represent, we can't come 
to the floor and try to improve a trade agreement and make it work 
better for working families in our States. I would oppose this 
agreement just on this principle alone.
  S. 1269 would lock us into fast-track rules for debates and votes 
that we are going to be taking later on in the Congress. This will lock 
us in until the year 2001. That is the duration of the bill's 
provisions. So what we are deciding right now is whether or not we are 
going to establish highly restrictive rules which will govern our 
debate and votes later on implementing bills for agreements, the 
contents of which we do not know at this time.
  That is profoundly antidemocratic. On the principle of democracy, on 
the principle of being here to represent people in Minnesota, I would 
oppose this fast-track legislation just on this idea alone.
  Let's talk a little bit about what could happen between now and 2001. 
We could bring Chile into NAFTA. It may be good; it may not be good. We 
could broaden what we call NAFTA to include additional countries in 
Latin America and the Caribbean, turning NAFTA eventually into a free-
trade area for the Americas, FTAA. We could look to the Asian Pacific 
Economic Cooperation Forum, and we could negotiate these privileges as 
well, which could be NAFTA-like privileges, vis-a-vis countries in 
Asia. We might complete a worldwide multilateral agreement on 
investment which would be called the NIA. We could do all of these 
things.
  But the point is that under this provision, if we enter into these 
agreements up until the year 2001, all of this will come to the floor 
of the Senate with an expedited procedure. No amendments will be in 
order and there will be a limited number of hours. How can we as 
Senators represent consumers in our States, how can we represent 
working families in our States, how can we be out here fighting for 
decent jobs and decent wages, how can we, for that matter, represent 
people in other countries who want to see their standard of living 
lifted, not depressed, and at the same time agree to these kinds of 
agreements--we don't even know what will be in them--with this 
procedure that there will be limited debate and no amendments.
  This is a basic principle of democracy. I say to my colleagues we 
should not vote for this fast-track procedure because it denies us the 
ability to be out here representing the people in our States. That is 
what fast track is all about--an up-or-down vote on a giant bill which 
has a critical impact on numerous laws, these laws having a dramatic 
impact on the quality or lack of quality of life of the people we 
represent. That is one of the reasons I opposed NAFTA and one of the 
reasons I opposed the creation of the WTO as well.

  Let me point out that one administration official testified last year 
that negotiators had effectively concluded 200 trade agreements since 
President Clinton took office in 1993--nearly 200 trade agreements--and 
only two of those utilized fast-track procedures. So if trade 
agreements can be so readily reached without the benefit of fast track, 
then I question the need to impose these kinds of procedures which are 
inherently undemocratic. They shorten the debate. We cannot come out 
here with amendments. We cannot come out here to represent people in 
our States the way we should. Therefore, I would oppose this, and I 
hope my colleagues will as well.
  This whole idea of trade policy, which is so important, is supposed 
to be good for all of us, including consumers. Have the representatives 
of consumer groups been involved in this discussion? Certainly 
corporations and various economic sectors have helped to decide what 
our goals are, which is appropriate. But how about consumers? Consumers 
might be worried about downward harmonization of standards. Consumers 
might be worried about food safety standards and how this will affect 
their children. They might be worried about or oppose in principle 
deplorable child labor conditions in other countries. They might be 
worried about or oppose in principle deplorable violations of human 
rights of people in other countries.
  Consumers, the people we represent, may say, look, we would like to 
make sure that this is a part of a trade agreement. But the position 
the administration has taken in fast track is that these concerns are 
excluded as trade objectives. But they probably would be included as 
objectives if we had a more democratic process for negotiating and 
considering trade agreements.

[[Page S11715]]

  What I am trying to say is it becomes, I think, a Catch-22. If we as 
Senators are going to say, ipso facto, we give approval to any number 
of different trade agreements up through the year 2001, the provisions 
of which we do not even know about yet, then quite clearly what we are 
saying is we will not be able to come out here with amendments to 
protect consumers and working families, in which case I think we are 
going to get the same response from the administration, which is we 
will not make these agreements part of a trade agreement, basic 
protection on fair labor standards, on consumer protection, on 
environmental protection.
  I think that is the tragic mistake we will be making if we approve 
fast track.
  My second reason for opposing the motion to proceed is that I am not 
at all confident--in fact, unfortunately, I am quite certain--that as 
opposed to improving the standard of living and the quality of life for 
a majority of Americans, these trade agreements will have precisely the 
opposite effect.
  Let me also say that I am equally concerned about trade agreements 
that will lead to an improvement of the quality of life and living 
standards of people in other countries. I am all for trade agreements 
that lead to an improvement of the standard of living of people in our 
country and people in other countries. I am not in favor of a trade 
agreement that ends up not being global village but global pillage, 
where what you have instead is a systematic violation of the rights of 
children, of basic human rights, of basic fair labor standards and of 
basic environmental standards leading to profits for the few large 
multinational corporations and misery for way too many people 
throughout the world.
  Mr. President, we have had extensive debate on NAFTA, which was 
approved, and also extensive debate on the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade, which ultimately led to the creation of the World Trade 
Organization, the WTO. I voted against implementing these trade 
agreements because I was concerned that these trade agreements would 
not take our country in the right direction. Now, as I think about it, 
I am afraid that the empirical evidence supports this view as well.
  Let me say again, I didn't oppose NAFTA or WTO because I am a 
protectionist. I am an internationalist. I don't have any interest in 
building walls on the borders of our country to keep out goods and 
services. Nor do I fear fair competition from workers and companies 
operating in other countries. I am not afraid of our neighbors. I don't 
fear other countries nor their people. I am in favor of open trade, and 
I believe the President should negotiate trade agreements which lead, 
generally, to more open markets here and abroad.
  Indeed, I am aware of the benefits of trade for the economy of 
Minnesota, and I am told about that constantly. We have an extremely 
internationally minded community of corporations, larger companies, 
small businesses, working people and farmers in our State. And we have 
done relatively well in this international economy. I am very proud of 
Minnesota's performance in this international economy.
  We have lost some jobs to trade, as have most States, but we have 
also benefited from trade. We benefit both from the exports and the 
imports: The exports create the jobs, as we all know, but the imports 
are not necessarily a bad thing. They provide the competition for 
consumers and they can push our own domestic companies to do better, to 
be more productive and to be more efficient. Open trade can contribute 
significantly to the expansion of wealth and opportunity, and it can 
reward innovation and productivity. It can deliver higher quality goods 
and services at better prices.
  So, what I am saying is not that we should not be involved in 
international trade, not that our country doesn't have a major role--we 
have a major role and play a major role in the international economy. 
But what I am saying is that the Congress should exercise its proper 
role in regulating trade, which is what trade agreements do, so that 
the rules of this international trade reflect American values. That is 
how America can lead in the world and it is how America should lead in 
the world.
  What American values are we talking about when it comes to trade? 
What are the American values when it comes to trade? We believe in open 
markets at home and abroad. But we also think there is a role for 
Government to play, especially when it comes to the protection of 
fundamental labor rights for working women and men, when it comes to 
the protection of children in the labor force, when it comes to 
environmental standards, when it comes to food and other consumer 
protections. These are important values in our country. When it comes 
to fundamental standards dealing with human rights and when it comes to 
democracy, these are important American values. The question is, how 
can we pursue these values when we are negotiating trade agreements?
  The Clinton administration believes that the commercial issues are 
primarily in the body of the trade agreements, which are enforceable 
with trade sanctions, and that the environmental and the labor rights 
issues and the human rights issues are secondary. A majority of the 
Senate appears to agree. I do not, and I don't believe most Americans 
agree with the President and the majority of the Senate on this 
question. I believe, and I think most Americans believe, that 
fundamental standard-of-living and quality-of-life issues are exactly 
what trade policy should be all about. That is why strong and 
enforceable labor rights, environmental and consumer protections belong 
directly in the agreements themselves. And if trade agreements do not 
help to uphold democracy and respect for human rights, then they are 
deficient. That is my position and, as we enter the 21st century, these 
should be the pillars of American leadership in the world.
  At the same time we are told that America must lead on the issue of 
trade, we are also told that if we don't negotiate trade agreements, 
even ones that do not live up to our own principles, then other 
countries will do so with each other in our absence; we will be left 
out. That is what we are told. What a contradiction. We must lead but 
we must do so by weakening our values, by leaving enforcement of labor 
rights out of agreements we negotiate, by leaving protection of the 
environment out of agreements we negotiate, by surrendering our 
principal linkage of human rights concerns to trade policy.
  Are we saying that when it comes down to it, that money is basically 
all that matters? Is that how America should lead the world? Not in my 
view. Our trade policy should seek to create fair trading arrangements 
which lift up the standards of people in all nations. It should foster 
competition based on productivity, quality, and rising living 
standards--not competition based on exploitation and a race to the 
bottom.
  As one Minnesotan, Larry Weiss, wrote in our State's largest 
newspaper earlier this week, ``What we want is a global village, not 
global pillage.'' Protection of basic labor and environmental and food 
safety standards are just as important and just as valid as any other 
commercial or economic objective sought by the U.S. negotiators in 
trade agreements. We need to be encouraging good corporate citizenship, 
not the flight of capital and the dissemination of good-paying jobs 
from the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend his remarks for a 
moment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, since I have to interrupt my remarks, I 
ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for additional comments 
immediately after the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________