[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 155 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11917-S11918]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               FAST TRACK

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the fast-track bill 
that is before us. I have followed the debate on this legislation very 
closely. I have listened to my colleagues discuss at length the issues 
of trade flows, foreign direct investment, the delegation of authority, 
and unfair trade agreements. It has been an interesting debate for this 
freshman Senator.
  I want to share with my colleagues the feelings that my constituents 
have expressed to me. Many of them have deep concerns about our 
progress on trade. Intense import competition makes them feel as if 
they have been left behind in the pursuit of fair trade.
  There is an issue here that is far more important to my constituents 
than trade, however, but it is inextricably linked to their ability to 
compete. While the administration vows to fight for fair trade with 
foreign countries, people in Wyoming want this administration to fight 
for fair regulation in this country. For them, fair trade will not 
stimulate economic growth when their growth is halted by unreasonable 
regulations.
  It seems that there is a real disconnect in our administration's 
policies on economic health. While one side of the administration is 
promoting job growth in exports, the other side is shutting down our 
enterprises with overly restrictive environmental regulations.
  There is an inconsistency here that is difficult to explain to people 
in Wyoming. They do not understand why the administration supports 
export growth, but allows the Environmental Protection Agency to issue 
and adopt regulations such as the new particulate matter and ozone 
standards for air quality.
  How does this relate to the fast-track bill we are debating? It 
connects in two ways. The first issue is jobs. The purpose of the bill 
before us is to promote job growth--which is a good purpose and I 
support it. Unreasonable regulatory mandates, however, do not create 
jobs. Second, like fast track, environmental regulation is a delegated 
authority. And in my opinion, it is one delegated authority that is out 
of control.
  Let me first discuss what is wrong with the standards and how they 
will destroy jobs. They were formulated and adopted with a disturbing 
lack of scientific consensus; with no accountability; and with a 
genuine disregard for the real effects they will have on working 
people.
  The accuracy of scientific information in the formulation of 
scientific rules is critical for a democracy. Democracies cannot 
survive without being able to rely on the precision of their scientific 
information. Furthermore, democracies cannot survive when bureaucracies 
are able to impose expensive mandates without any accountability. 
Democracy depends on representation along with taxation. Bureaucrats 
must consult with elected representatives before imposing massive costs 
on our citizens.
  With the adoption of these unreasonable standards, the EPA and the 
administration have failed on both of these counts.
  There are numerous examples that show a lack of scientific consensus 
in the promulgation of these new air quality standards. The EPA's own 
Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, stated that at this point, 
``there is no adequately articulated scientific basis for making 
regulatory decisions concerning a particulate matter National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard.''
  The administration's National Institute of Environmental Health 
Sciences dismissed the EPA's claims about the relationship between 
childhood asthma and air quality. They observed that the asthma rate in 
Philadelphia has soared even as that city's air pollution levels have 
plummeted. They also noted that some of the highest asthma rates in the 
world occur in Australia and New Zealand--two countries with excellent 
air quality.
  Strangely enough, while the EPA is promulgating expensive rules, 
other agencies have been pushing for economic growth. The U.S. Trade 
Representative, the Department of Commerce, the Small Business 
administration, and the Department of Agriculture--have all advocated 
the importance of fast track for growth.
  Even the President has emphasized the need for fast track in terms of 
job creation. He stressed that,

       ``In order for us to continue to create jobs and 
     opportunities for our own people, and to maintain our 
     world leadership, we have to continue to expand exports . 
     . . We have to act now to continue [our] progress to make 
     sure our economy will work for all the American people.''

  Well, I stand here to tell you that unreasonably expensive 
regulations will not make our economy work for all American people. 
Achievements in trade expansion will not overcome the excessive costs 
imposed by regulatory mandates.
  And the costs are excessive. At first, the EPA estimated the cost 
would be

[[Page S11918]]

less than $2.5 billion. Then, the President's own Council of Economic 
Advisors put the price at a considerably higher $60 billion. I have 
seen estimates for the cost as high as $150 billion. That was an amount 
quoted in a Senate Small Business Committee hearing we held earlier 
this year. I think the difference in magnitude between these 
estimates--$2.5 billion and $150 billion--deeply concerns me, and is--
in and of itself--a good reason to delay the standards.
  The disagreement continues. The EPA stated in its regulatory impact 
analysis that the rules will not have a significant effect on small 
businesses. But the Small Business Administration refuted that. The SBA 
confirmed that, ``Considering the large economic impacts suggested by 
EPA's own analysis, [which] will unquestionably fall on tens of 
thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of small businesses--this would 
be a startling proposition to the small business community.''
  It will affect hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Just who 
are we trying to help our trade policy, Mr. President?
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture also raised concerns. They 
highlighted that EPA's air quality standards ``do not contain detailed 
information regarding specific effects on agriculture that may be 
caused by pollution or that may result from pollution controls.''
  American agriculture is just beginning to see what is coming down the 
pike with regard to clean water standards. We are now taking a close 
look at how the EPA will be able to enforce ``total maximum daily 
load'' guidelines on streams in my State. This is a big concern for 
everyone who uses water in Wyoming. And we all do.
  The fact is, the unreasonable environmental regulations destroy 
thousands of U.S. jobs by raising input and compliance costs. In a 1996 
study of regulatory costs, Thomas Hopkins of the Center for the Study 
of American Business, estimated that regulatory mandates already cost 
small businesses between $3,000 and $5,500 per employee. The new air 
quality standards will impose an enormous new cost on top of that 
without any verification of the benefits.
  The second connection this issue has to the debate of fast track is 
the issue of delegated authority. Congress has a responsibility to 
regulate commerce with foreign nations that is derived directly from 
the Constitution. Fast track delegates that authority to the executive 
branch.
  Whether one agrees with the practical need for fast track or not, no 
member can deny that it is a delegation of congressional 
responsibility. Our senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Robert 
Byrd, is an expert historian on constitutional law and he has spoken 
very eloquently and persuasively about this issue and against the fast-
track legislation.
  I have also heard some very convincing arguments about the necessity 
of fast track. The argument is made that we need a strong voice in our 
multilateral trade negotiations--a voice that has the authority to back 
up its demands. Whether that is to be believed or not, recent 
developments make me very reluctant to delegate that authority. I have 
already stated my concerns about EPA's expansive interpretations of its 
delegated authority--now, we face the prospect that the administration 
will commit to dangerously unfair commitments in the global warming 
treaty to be discussed in Kyoto this December.
  The administration's positions on the global climate change treaty 
are a paramount example of politics over science. There has been no 
scientific consensus on this issue. There has been no proven 
relationship to show that the climate change treaty would have any 
effect on global temperatures. In fact, there isn't any proof that 
human intervention will make a difference.
  For some reason, however, the administration seems ready to embrace 
an agreement that would wage economic war against our own workers. 
According to one independent estimate, complying with U.N. reduction 
targets for greenhouse gas emissions could cost this country as much as 
$350 billion per year. That is nearly $2,000 for every working 
American.
  The result will be the loss of 5 million American jobs directly 
related to energy use and production and the loss of several million 
more jobs that are indirectly related. The jobs will simply be 
transferred overseas--not to countries doing a better job, countries 
that are doing a worse job--something that is becoming easier and 
easier. It will be particularly easy if developing countries like 
China, India, Brazil, and Mexico do not impose the same air quality 
standards on themselves. That is what we are talking about in that 
treaty.
  This is not consistent with promoting economic growth. Furthermore, 
there is no scientific consensus. Most importantly it is unfair. 
Personally, these circumstances make me very hesitant to support fast 
track and to restrict my ability to modify agreements entered into by 
this administration.
  I cannot rationalize giving the Administration the authority to 
negotiate agreements with other countries when they refuse to negotiate 
domestic regulations with Congress.
  Before I close, I want to stress that I understand the importance of 
trade agreements. I understand that Americans have much to gain by 
reducing foreign barriers. I do believe fast track is necessary for 
practically negotiating multilateral agreements.
  I want to point out, however, that many of my constituents in the 
State of Wyoming have grave reservations about expanding NAFTA. Two of 
the largest sectors of Wyoming's economy, agriculture and energy, are 
in direct competition with Canadian producers. While our Nation as a 
whole stands to benefit from increased market access in Europe, South 
America, and Asia--my constituents need attention focused on unfair 
import competition from NAFTA.
  This problem is most apparent in our northern tier States. The 
Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, has clearly presented the 
unfair practices faced by our wheat and barley growers. United States 
food manufacturers import over $200 million per year in Canadian 
wheat--nearly all of which is sold by the Canadian state trading board.
  Cattle imports from Canada have also flooded our market. While 
national meat import levels have remained fairly stable, live imports 
from Canada into the Northern States have increased by over 100 percent 
since 1994. They have been especially unwelcome in a buyers' market 
that is saturated by oversupply and restricted by packer concentration. 
These Canadian imports exacerbated prices that were already down by 
over 40 percent.
  Most recently, the independent oil producers in my State, who already 
face stringent regulations and substantial Federal taxation, are now 
competing with 130,000 barrels per day of Canadian crude that is being 
pumped into the region through a new pipeline. Wyoming's posted sour 
crude prices have plummeted from over $19 per barrel in 1996 to just 
$14 per barrel this year.
  Needless to say, many of my Wyoming constituents feel they are 
getting the raw end of free trade. Most of them are people who deeply 
believe in fair and open trade, but they have real reservations about 
expanding agreements they don't feel are fair.
  I will conclude by stressing that it is good for the administration 
to set its sights on foreign markets, but they must also pay attention 
to what is happening at home. There is no reason to open up foreign 
markets while you are closing down your businesses by strangling them 
with regulations.
  We need to inject a standard of reasonableness in our environmental 
policy. The issues of job growth, trade, and domestic regulation are 
linked. I would like to see more consistency in our policy on economic 
growth.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], is 
recognized.

                          ____________________