[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12520-S12522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               FAST TRACK

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, because the proposal for fast-track trade 
authority was not adopted, there have been a good many columns and 
commentators evaluating why fast track failed. I wanted to comment 
about that just a bit today. It is interesting. Even though the 
political pathologists for this legislation--the journalists, and the 
beltway insiders--have picked the fast track carcass clean, they still 
missed the cause of death.
  The eulogies I read have no relationship to the deceased. Fast track 
didn't die because of unions and union opposition to fast track. Fast 
track didn't die because the President didn't have the strength to get 
it through the Congress. Fast track didn't die because our country 
doesn't want to engage in international trade. Fast track died because 
this country is deeply divided on trade issues. There is not a 
consensus in this country at this point on the issue of international 
trade. Instead of a national dialogue on trade we have at least a half 
dozen or more monologues on trade.
  What people miss when they evaluate what happened to fast track is 
the deep concern that this country has not done well in international 
trade, especially in our trade agreements. This did not matter very 
much during the first 25 years after the Second World War. We could 
make virtually any agreement with anybody and provide significant 
concessions under the guise of foreign policy and we could still win 
the trade competition with one hand tied behind our backs. We could do 
that because we were bigger, better, stronger, better prepared, and 
better able. Thus, trade policy was largely foreign policy.
  During the first 25 years after the Second World War, our incomes 
continued to rise in this country despite the fact that our trade 
policy was largely foreign policy. However, the second 25 years have 
told a different story, and we now face tougher and shrewder 
competition from countries that are very able to compete with us. And 
our trade policy must be more realistic and must be a trade policy that 
recognizes more the needs of this country.

  Will Rogers said something, probably 70 years ago, that speaks to our 
trade policy concerns. I gave an approximate quote of that here on the 
floor the other day. He describes the concern people have about trade, 
yes, even

[[Page S12521]]

today. Let me tell you what he said. Speaking of the United States, he 
said,

       We have never lost a war and we have never won a 
     conference. I believe that we could, without any degree of 
     egotism, single-handedly lick any nation in the world. But we 
     can't even confer with Costa Rica and come home with our 
     shirts on.

  A lot of people still feel this way about our country. We could lick 
any nation in the world but we can't confer with Costa Rica and come 
home with our shirts on. ``We have never lost a war and never won a 
conference,'' Will Rogers said.
  What are the various interests here that cause all of this angst and 
anxiety? There is the interest of the corporations, particularly the 
very large corporations. They have an interest of profit. Their 
interest is to go somewhere else in the world and produce a product as 
cheaply as they can produce it and send it back to sell in America. 
That provides a profit. That is in their interest. It is a legitimate 
interest on behalf of their stockholders, but it is their interest. Is 
it parallel to the national interest?
  Economists: their interest is seeing this in theory in terms of the 
doctrine of comparative advantage. Now this was first preached at a 
time when there weren't corporations, only nations. This is the notion 
that each nation should do what it is best prepared and equipped to do 
and then trade with others for that which it is least able to do.
  Consumers: consumers have an interest, in some cases, of trying to 
buy the cheapest or least expensive product available.
  Workers: workers want to keep their jobs and want to have good jobs 
and want to have a future and an opportunity for a job that pays well, 
with decent benefits.
  Then there are the big thinkers. Those are the people who think they 
know more than all the rest of us. They understand that trade policy is 
simply called trade policy. Actually, they still want it to be foreign 
policy. Incidentally, some of those big thinkers were around last week. 
When the real debate about fast track got going, who rushed to Capitol 
Hill? The Secretary of State, and U.S. Ambassador to the United 
Nations, came here because we still have some of those big thinkers who 
believe trade policy must inevitably be foreign policy in our country.
  Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, ``The question is not where you 
stand but in what direction are you moving?'' You must always move, you 
must not drift or lie at anchor.
  The question is, now that fast track has failed, what direction are 
we moving? What is our interest in trade? What can spark a national 
consensus on trade issues? What are the new goals?
  First of all, I think most Americans would understand that we want 
our country to be a leader in trade. Our country should lead in the 
area of expanding world trade. Yet the real question is, how do we lead 
and where do we lead?
  I think the starting point is this. We have the largest trade 
deficits in this country's history. Most Americans viscerally 
understand that. We have the largest trade deficits in our country's 
history, and they are getting worse, not better. We must do something 
about it.
  We have specific and vexing trade problems that go unresolved. I have 
mentioned many times on the floor of the Senate the trade problem with 
Canada, which is not the largest problem we have. Yet, it is a huge 
problem for the people that it affects. I am talking about the flood of 
unfairly traded Canadian grain that is undercutting our farmers' 
interests.
  I just got off the phone with a farmer an hour ago. He was calling 
from North Dakota. He said the price of grain is down, way down. He's 
trying to compete with terribly unfair imports coming in through his 
back door from a state trading enterprise which would be illegal in 
this country and are sold at secret prices.
  Trade problems which go unresolved fester and infect, and that is 
what causes many in this country to have a sour feeling about this 
country's trade policy. Because of a range of these problems, this 
country does not have a consensus on trade policy, at least not a 
consensus that Congress should pass fast track.
  Last weekend and early this week when fast track failed to get the 
needed votes to pass the Congress, there were people who almost had 
apoplectic seizures here in Washington, DC. They were falling over 
themselves, saying, ``Woe is America. What on Earth is going happen?''
  Then we had countries in South America get into the act. I read in 
the paper that one of the countries in South America said, ``You know, 
if the United States can't have fast-track trade authority then we are 
going to have to negotiate with somebody else.''
  Oh, really? Who are you going to negotiate with? Have you found a 
substitute for the American marketplace anywhere on the globe? Is there 
anywhere on Earth that a substitute for the American marketplace 
exists? Maybe you want to negotiate with Nigeria? How about Zambia? 
Zambia has a lower gross national product than the partners of Goldman 
Sachs have income. So go negotiate with Zambia.
  Would our trading partners do us a favor, and not think the world is 
coming apart because we have not passed fast track? They need to 
understand that we want expanded trade. In the debate about trade we 
want to have embedded some notion about responsibilities. These are the 
responsibilities that we have as a country to decide that our trade 
policy must also reflect our values. These values are about the 
environment, about safe workplaces, about children working, about food 
safety and, yes, about human rights.
  Does that mean we want to impose our values, imprint them, stamp them 
in every circumstance around the globe for a condition of trade? No. It 
does mean there is a bar at some point that we establish that says this 
minimum represents the set of values that we care about with respect to 
our trade relations.
  Do we care if another country allows firms to hire 12-year-old kids, 
work them 12 hours a day and pay them 12 cents an hour and then ships 
these products to Pittsburgh, Los Angeles and Fargo? Yes, the consumer 
gets a cheaper product, but do we want 12-year-old kids working 
somewhere to produce it? Do we care that they compete with a company in 
this country that is unable to hire kids because this country is 
unwilling to let companies hire kids? We also say to these companies 
that they cannot dump chemicals into the air and into the water. We 
require a safe workplace. We require that a living wage be paid. At 
least we have minimum wage conditions.
  We need to answer those questions. What really is fair trade? In 
whose interests do we fight for the set of values that we want for our 
future in our trade policies?
  As we seek a new consensus on trade in this country, I hope that 
consensus will include the following goals:
  First, it would be in this country's interest to end its chronic 
trade deficits. For 21 years in a row we have had chronic, nagging, 
growing trade deficits. I hope that as a goal we will decide that it is 
in this country's interest to end these trade deficits. Hopefully we 
would do it by increasing net exports from this country.
  Second, we want more and better jobs in this country. That means our 
trade agreements ought to be designed to foster and improve job 
conditions in this country and living standards. As a part of that we 
need to require that our values are reflected in our trade policies, 
including our concerns about others who do not respect the rights of 
children and the environment.
  Third, we need mandatory enforcement of trade agreements. Let us 
finally enforce the trade agreements we have made in the past. There 
are too many agreements that our trading partners are not abiding by. 
Let us not consign American producers and American workers to some 
wilderness out there facing vexing trade problems that cannot and will 
not be solved. Let's decide as a country, if an agreement is worth 
making, it is worth enforcing. Let us stand up to Canada, Mexico, 
China, and Japan and others and say, ``If you are going to have trade 
agreements with us, this country insists on its behalf and on behalf of 
its farmers, workers and employers that we are going to enforce trade 
agreements.''
  Fourth, let us end the currency trap doors in trade agreements. When 
we make a trade agreement with some country and they devalue their 
currency, all the benefits of that trade

[[Page S12522]]

agreement, and much, much more, are swept away in an instant.
  Fifth, all trade agreements should relate to the question of whether 
they contribute to this country's national security.
  These are the values that I think make sense for this country to 
discuss and consider as it tries to seek a new consensus on trade 
policy.

  Once again, those who do the autopsies on failed public policies, 
including fast track during this last week, should not miss the cause 
of death. The reason fast track failed was because, as President Wilson 
once said, the murmur of public policy in this country comes not from 
this Chamber and not from the seats of learning in this town, but it 
comes from the factories and the farms and from the hills and the 
valleys of this country and from the homes of people who care about 
what happens to the economy of this country, and the economy of their 
State and their community.
  They are the ones who evaluate whether public policy is in their 
interest or in this country's interest. They are the ones, after all, 
who decide what happens in this Chamber, because they are the ones who 
sent us here and the ones who asked us to provide the kind of 
leadership toward a system of trade and economic policy that will 
result in a better country.
  Finally, Mr. President, I hope that as we discuss trade in the days 
ahead, it will be in a thoughtful, and not thoughtless, way. We do not 
need a discussion by those who say, ``Well, fast track is dead, the 
protectionists win.'' That is not what the vote was about. It is not 
what the issue was about, and it is not the way I think we will 
confront trade policies in the future.
  I will conclude with one additional point. There is an op-ed piece in 
the New York Times today which I found most interesting. I ask 
unanimous consent to have this op-ed piece printed in the Record at the 
end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is an op-ed piece by Thomas Friedman. 
I commend it to my colleagues. He talks about the new American politics 
and especially about fast-track trade authority. He said we have a 
trade debate among people divided into four categories:
  The Integrationists: ``These are people who believe freer trade and 
integration are either inevitable or good, and they want to promote 
more trade agreements and Internet connections from one end of the 
world to the other, 24 hours a day.''
  There are the Social Safety-Netters. ``These are people who believe 
that we need to package global integration with programs that will 
assist the `know-nots' and `have-nots.' ''
  Then there are the Let-Them-Eat-Cakers. ``These are people who 
believe that globalization is winner-take-all, loser-take-care-of-
yourself.
  He provides an interesting statement of where he thinks all of the 
current key players in the debate find themselves.

       Now everyone in the fast-track debate is in my matrix: Bill 
     Clinton is an Integrationist-Social-Safety-Netter. Newt 
     Gingrich is an Integrationist-Let-Them-Eat-Caker. Dick 
     Gephardt is a Separatist-Social-Safety-Netter and Ross Perot 
     is a Separatist-Let-Them-Eat-Caker.

  If that piques your interest, I encourage you to look at this 
particular piece by Thomas Friedman in which he describes his 
interesting matrix of trade policy and the need to build a new 
consensus.
  Finally, I want to say that what this country needs most at this 
point is to understand there is not now a consensus on trade policy. I 
say to the President and I say to the corporations and labor unions and 
the people in this country that it is time to develop a new consensus. 
I am interested, for one, in finding a way to bridge the gaps among all 
of the competing interests in trade to see if we might be able to weave 
a quilt of public policy that represents this country's best interest 
in advancing our economy and our American values.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the New York Times, Nov. 13, 1997]

                       The New American Politics

                        (By Thomas L. Friedman)

       Well, I guess it's official now: America has a four-party 
     system.
       That's the most important lesson to come out of Monday's 
     decision by Congressional Democrats to reject President 
     Clinton's request for ``fast track'' authority to sign more 
     international free-trade agreements. I see a silver lining in 
     what Congress did, even though it was harebrained. Maybe now 
     at least the American public, and the business community, 
     will fully understand what politics is increasingly about in 
     this country, and will focus on which of America's four 
     parties they want to join.
       Me, I'm an Integrationist-Social-Safety-Netter. How about 
     you?
       To figure out which party you're in let me again offer the 
     Friedman matrix of globalization politics. Take a piece of 
     paper and draw a line across the middle from east to west. 
     This is the globalization line, where you locate how you feel 
     about the way in which technology and open markets are 
     combining to integrate more and more of the world. At the far 
     right end of this line are the Integrationists. These are 
     people who believe that freer trade and integration are 
     either inevitable or good; they want to promote more trade 
     agreements and Internet connections from one end of the world 
     to the other, 24 hours a day.
       Next go to the far left end of this line. These are the 
     Separatists. These are people who believe free trade and 
     technological integration are neither good nor inevitable; 
     they want to stop them in their tracks. So first locate 
     yourself somewhere on this line between Separatists and 
     Integrationists.
       Now draw another line from north to south through the 
     middle of the globalization line. This is the distribution 
     line. It defines what you believe should go along with 
     globalization to cushion its worst social, economic and 
     environmental impacts. At the southern end of this line are 
     the Social-Safety-Netters. These are people who believe that 
     we need to package global integration with programs that will 
     assist the ``know-nots'' and ``have-nots,'' who lack the 
     skills to take advantage of the new economy or who get caught 
     up in the job-churning that goes with globalization and are 
     unemployed or driven into poorer-paying jobs. The Safety-
     Netters also want programs to improve labor and environmental 
     standards in developing countries rushing headlong into the 
     global economy.
       At the northern tip of this distribution line are the Let-
     Them-Eat-Cakers. These are people who believe that 
     globalization is winner-take-all, loser-take-care-of-
     yourself.
       Now everyone in the fast-track debate is my matrix: Bill 
     Clinton is an Integrationist-Social-Safety-Netter. Newt 
     Gingrich is an Integrationist-Let-Them-Eat-Caker. Dick 
     Gephardt is a Separatist-Social-Safety-Netter and Ross Perot 
     is a Separatist-Let-Them-Eat-Caker. That's why Mr. Clinton 
     and Mr. Gingrich are allies on free trade but opponents on 
     social welfare, and why Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Perot are allies 
     against more free trade, but opponents on social welfare.
       As I said, I'm an Integrationist-Social-Safety-Netter. I 
     believe that the technologies weaving the world more tightly 
     together cannot be stopped and the integration of markets can 
     only be reversed at a very, very high cost. Bill Clinton is 
     right about that and Dick Gephardt and the unions are wrong.
       But Mr. Gephardt and the unions are right that 
     globalization is as creatively destructive as the earlier 
     versions of capitalism, which destroyed feudalism and 
     Communism. With all its positives, globalization does churn 
     new jobs and destroy old ones, it does widen gaps between 
     those with knowledge skills and those without them, it does 
     weaken bonds of community. And the Clinton team, the business 
     community and all the workers already benefiting from the 
     information economy never took these dark sides seriously 
     enough.
       One hopes they now realize that this is one of the most 
     fundamental issues--maybe the most fundamental issue--in 
     American politics. You can't just give a speech about it one 
     month before they vote, you can't just have your company buy 
     an ad supporting it the day before you vote, you can't just 
     summon a constituency for it on the eve of the vote. You have 
     to build a real politics of Integrationist-Social-Safety-
     Nettism--a politics that can show people the power and 
     potential of global integration, while taking seriously their 
     needs for safety nets to protect them along the way. Build it 
     and they will come.

  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________