[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 33 (Monday, March 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2381-S2387]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR NATURAL DISASTERS AND OVERSEAS 
               PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of S. 1768, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1768) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for recovery from natural disasters, and for 
     overseas peacekeeping efforts, for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Alaska is 
recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider the 
supplemental appropriations bill. It is a bill for emergency disaster 
needs and for overseas military operations.
  Our Committee on Appropriations reported this bill, S. 1768, along 
with S. 1769, on Tuesday, March 17. S. 1769 provides funds for the 
International Monetary Fund. We reported both of these bills by one 
roll call vote, and that vote was 26-2. I call that to the attention of 
the Senate because it indicates a substantial agreement within our 
committee on the terms of these two bills.
  Prior to the date we reported this bill, the administration had 
transmitted four supplemental or rescission messages to the Congress 
for 1998. This bill addresses each of those requests and makes other 
adjustments based on our committee's review of agency needs and 
priorities.
  Our committee originated this bill ahead of the House Committee on 
Appropriations in order to complete action on these two urgent measures 
prior to the April recess. We have also done it to get ahead of some of 
the problems that are involved in the cloture votes before the Senate, 
because we just don't want this bill to be held up by the period of 
time that has to run if we do vote cloture on any other measure.
  We have consulted with the House committee, and particularly the 
House committee chairman, on this approach, and I am pleased that the 
House understands what we are doing. The House committee will take up 
these two matters later this week. It is our hope that both of the 
bills will be in conference by the last week of March.
  We have to have these bills passed before the recess. That is 
necessary, as I will explain later, as far as military implications and 
the disaster moneys that are involved. In order to do that, we must 
start this bill today and finish the bill before the cloture vote 
tomorrow, which is scheduled for 5:30 tomorrow evening.

  S. 1768 makes appropriations for natural disaster relief and military 
operations. It provides $2.5 billion in emergency funds. Pursuant to 
the budget agreement and the administration's request, these amounts 
are not offset by rescissions. Additionally, there are approximately 
$190 million in new, nonemergency appropriations offset by specific 
rescissions or reductions in contract authority that are also addressed 
in this bill.
  Most of those amounts are directed to meet the ``Year 2000'' computer 
crisis faced by several Federal agencies. Additional funds to ensure 
Federal computer systems are ready for the year 2000 will be provided 
in the 1999 fiscal year bill. We will present the bill later this year.
  For Department of Defense operations, the committee recommends $1.8 
billion in emergency funding for ongoing missions in Bosnia and in 
Southwest Asia and for the natural disaster response.
  The supplemental request for Bosnia was mandated by section 8132 of 
the 1998 defense appropriations bill, along with certifications and 
other submissions on the Bosnian mission.
  The committee also received a fiscal year 1999 budget amendment for 
Bosnia. We will consider that amendment in the context of the fiscal 
year 1999 defense bill for the full year of 1999. We will not deal with 
1999 funds for Bosnia in this bill.
  The request for operations in Southwest Asia is approximately $1.3 
billion. That amount sustains the current force structure and operating 
tempo through September 30 of this year.
  Let me say that again. The amount we have requested is sufficient 
only to maintain the existing deployment that has been made to contain 
Iraq. Should additional units be sent, we would have to once again ask 
for additional money.
  Secretary Cohen, the Secretary of Defense, has not made any request 
for funding for the fiscal year 1999 yet; that is, no money has been 
requested for fiscal year 1999 for the deployment that is ongoing to 
contain Iraq in Southwest Asia.
  As was discussed at our hearing on Friday, it is essential that our 
allies and regional partners in the gulf contribute more to this 
mission. Both Senator Byrd and I have spoken out on this before. At our 
committee markup before the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd 
offered his amendment, which is section 203 of this bill.
  The Byrd amendment establishes a process for the administration to 
seek fuller participation by our allies and regional partners for the 
Southwest Asia mission and the costs associated with that mission.
  The recommendation from the committee also includes $672 million for 
disaster relief efforts by several Federal agencies including the 
Departments of Agriculture, Interior, the Army Corps of Engineers, and 
Transportation.
  These amounts reflect the most recent estimates available to the 
committee from the Office of Management and Budget and increases that 
have been advocated by Senators for ongoing flooding in the Southeast 
and other needs. Some of these instances took place after the 
submission by the administration.
  The administration has not yet requested additional funds for FEMA, 
the

[[Page S2382]]

Federal Emergency Management Agency. We may still receive such a 
request today or tomorrow as better estimates are prepared for 
flooding, ice storm and tornado damage across the country.
  Based on the recent devastating tornadoes in North Carolina and 
Georgia over the weekend, I have urged the administration to forward 
any such request now so it will be considered during action on this 
bill.
  On Tuesday, the committee also reported S. 1769, as I indicated. That 
appropriates $17.9 billion for the International Monetary Fund. I hope 
the Senate will consider that bill this week as well. And we may well 
consider it as an amendment to this bill. At this time, there are 
discussions underway concerning the package proposed for IMF reforms. 
That was in the second bill, S. 1769, as reported by the committee. It 
is my hope that those talks will result in a new IMF package that will 
receive bipartisan support here in the Senate as we debate this bill.

  Our committee did not recommend at this time additional funding to 
pay arrears at the United Nations. The fiscal year 1998 Commerce-
Justice-State appropriations bill included $100 million pursuant to the 
budget agreement for arrears. This amount was made available subject to 
authorization of the U.N. budget and management reforms. That 
authorization bill has not yet passed nor has a firm agreement been 
reached between Congress and the administration concerning this matter.
  We do believe that the administration should conclude an agreement 
with Congress on U.N. reforms. And we hope, on that basis, to deal with 
the U.N. funding in the fiscal year 1999 State Department 
appropriations bill.
  However, Mr. President, it is also possible that the House of 
Representatives may address the U.N. funding and the matter could be 
considered in conference. It would do so on the basis of the House 
passing the authorization bill and, based upon such action by the 
House, it would send us a bill to be considered here in the Senate. And 
of course it is possible we might consider that in conference without 
the necessity of an authorization bill in the Senate if that is agreed 
to by appropriate Members of the Senate. Any resolution, of course, 
hinges on securing an agreement on U.N. reforms.
  The committee reported these two bills separately at the request of 
the House. We, however, want to ensure that defense and disaster relief 
amounts are enacted prior to the April recess. It is my intention to do 
everything I can to achieve passage of not only this bill but the IMF 
bill before that deadline.
  Let me ask every Member of the Senate to be on notice that we are 
going to do everything we can to work with them on amendments today. We 
will do everything possible to complete action on this bill tomorrow 
before the cloture vote that is already set, as I indicated.
  Now, once again, I just have to urge Members to come here today and 
offer their amendments. We hope that we will have some of them voted on 
tonight. There will be at least one vote tonight; that is for sure. And 
I think that Senator Byrd will join me in working to achieve reasonable 
time agreements wherever it is necessary to assure that we can debate 
and dispose of all amendments to this bill in a timely manner.
  It will be my intention to move to table extraneous amendments that 
are not urgent for action prior to September 30. The committee will 
begin the markup of the fiscal year 1999 bill early this year. We hope 
to do so in May or early June. I implore Senators to reserve amendments 
that pertain to issues that can be funded after September 30, to 
reserve those amendments for the fiscal year 1999 bill. This is an 
emergency supplemental. It deals with the disaster funding and it deals 
with the amounts necessary to support our forces which are overseas at 
this time.
  Now, Senators may disagree with the President on the deployment to 
Bosnia and may have some question about the size of the deployments to 
Kuwait and in the Southwest Asia area. All I can tell them is that the 
forces are there. The men and women in our armed services deserve 
support. If we do not support this bill now, the Department of Defense, 
under the Food and Forage Act, will simply have to take money out of 
the readiness accounts and we will see our forces here at home not 
receive the amount of money they need to continue to maintain their 
expertise and to maintain their readiness and to keep our defense 
systems in the shape that is necessary for any contingency.
  When we, as the superpower of the world, have deployments of the 
level we already have overseas, it is just not possible to neglect the 
readiness of these people here at home. We are turning over the forces 
in the Iraq deployment every 6 months, Mr. President. That means that 
forces that are here at home must be ready to go on active duty and in 
a deployment mode when their time comes.

  To be forced to take money from their readiness account in order to 
support those that are already deployed overseas is wrong. We need this 
money now. As I said, it must be done before April 1. The Joint Chiefs 
joined together to come to our committee and explain to us in detail 
the impact that not having these moneys available by April 1 would have 
on the readiness of forces stationed right here at home.
  Mr. President, this is a bill that is necessary because of these 
emergencies. All amendments that are offered making additional 
appropriations must either qualify for the emergency as is described in 
this bill or must have appropriate budget authority and outlay offsets. 
So we will be examining every amendment that comes forward to see 
whether it would delay the passage of this bill. Again, I can only 
plead with Senators to keep in mind the absolute necessity to assist us 
to get this job done before April 1.
  Now it is my pleasure to yield to my good and distinguished friend 
from West Virginia. I know he has a statement to make as well as an 
amendment to offer. I look forward to working with him throughout the 
consideration of the bill.
  I thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia 
is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend, 
the very distinguished Senator from Alaska, who is the chairman of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee.
  I commend the leaders of the Senate for scheduling this very 
important emergency supplemental appropriations bill so quickly after 
its having been reported out of the committee, and I was pleased to 
join our distinguished chairman, Senator Stevens, in taking the unusual 
step of scheduling our markup of this emergency bill prior to House 
action, in order to expedite congressional consideration of the bill. 
This bill contains some $2 billion in emergency appropriations which 
are urgently needed for the support of our men and women overseas 
engaged in peacekeeping efforts in both Bosnia and Southwest Asia, as 
well as to cover necessary repairs resulting from natural disasters at 
various military installations throughout the Nation. In addition, over 
$560 million is included in the bill for assistance to those of our 
citizens who have suffered from natural disasters, such as the flooding 
in the western and southern portions of the Nation and the ice storms 
in the northeast and the recent killer tornadoes in Florida.
  The bill also includes some $280 million in appropriations for 
various nonemergency purposes which are, nevertheless, necessary in 
order to enable various departments and agencies to continue their 
operations through the end of this fiscal year, without undue 
interruption. Of this amount, some $156 million is for the Federal 
Aviation Administration to expedite its work on improving the Air 
Traffic Control computer system in order to avoid any problems 
connected with the year 2000. As noted in the committee report, the 
Department of Transportation's Inspector General has recently concluded 
that without this additional assistance, if unexpected problems are 
identified during testing of the replacement computers, the FAA might 
find themselves in a situation where they may be unable to assure the 
safety of the traveling public in the year 2000. Page 25 of the 
committee report states--and I quote therefrom--that: ``Failure to 
resolve these computer hardware and software deficiencies well before 
the year 2000 problem could disrupt air traffic.'' These nonemergency 
discretionary appropriations are fully offset, largely through

[[Page S2383]]

rescissions, which are set forth in Chapter 11 of Title I of the bill.
  Finally, and very importantly, the bill includes $550 million in 
mandatory appropriations for veterans compensation and pensions. These 
funds are needed to accommodate the additional costs associated with 
the 1998 cost-of-living adjustment of 2.1 percent for compensation 
beneficiaries, as well as an increase in the estimated number of 
persons receiving such compensation and pension beneficiaries.
  With respect to Bosnia, the President has provided a certification 
and report, required by the Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Authorization and 
Appropriations Acts, that the continued presence of U.S. armed forces 
is required after June 30, 1998. The report bears some careful reading 
by my colleagues, and I hope they will read it, in that there is a 
departure from the requests of the administration in previous years. 
The requests in previous years were all couched in the language of 
short-term duration.
  Last year, the administration told us that we would be out of Bosnia 
in about a year.
  All of the witnesses who came up before the Armed Services Committee 
and the Appropriations Committee assured the committees that that was 
the expected timeframe which would be needed during which we would have 
to place our men and women in possible harm's way, but we were 
assured--we didn't just ask the question once or twice, and the 
response didn't come forth just once or twice, but the response was 
always in the context of a year's time.
  Well, I had strong suspicions then that it wouldn't work out that 
way, and I have a feeling that the administration felt the same way 
about it. I had a feeling that the administration was putting the best 
face on it and that they would be back within a year seeking more 
money. There is a bit of disingenuousness about it, I think. They 
probably knew in their own minds and hearts that it couldn't likely be 
done in a year, but that was the approach, that was the songbook from 
which everyone in the administration or the witnesses were to sing. It 
was to be a mighty chorus, everyone in harmony, no one out of tune, no 
sour notes, no ``off'' beats, everything orchestrated so that everyone 
would sound in unison to the effect it would be about a year.
  Having seen this kind of game played before, I was suspicious of it. 
The time is up now and we are not only in, but we are in for an 
indefinite amount of time. The President's report doesn't have any end 
point included. Here is what the President said, now that men and women 
are there, and I quote from the report: ``We do not propose a fixed 
end-date for the deployment.'' Let me repeat that: ``We do not propose 
a fixed end-date for the deployment.'' Now, that is a far cry from what 
the President's people were saying last year, a year ago. But there is 
a big difference. Once you get the Congress to go along for a little 
while and get the men over there, then it is a fait accompli for the 
Congress and they come back saying, ``We need more money.''
  ``We do not propose a fixed end-date for the deployment.'' That says 
it all. So we are in a different situation now. The exit strategy--in 
other words, the required conditions for our forces to come out and 
come home--reads like a nation-building strategy. What is required for 
us to leave Bosnia? First, judicial reform. Just a minor thing, 
judicial reform. Then, development of an independent media throughout 
the territory. Now, that sounds to me like a pretty big order. Then 
there is more. Democratic elections. What do we mean by democratic 
elections? Democratic elections followed by free market economic 
reforms--ahhh, free market economic reforms--privatization of the 
economy, and so on and on.
  Well, that is an amazing piece of work. I urge my colleagues to read 
that report. We all get the point. This is a formula requiring the 
completion of a new, integrated democratic state. That is what nation-
building is. I didn't buy on to that. The U.S. Senate has not bought 
onto that. And if the duration of our stay is going to be based on 
nation-building, as the President is obviously saying in the report, we 
are there for a good, long time.

  How many Senators want to buy on now? Now is your chance, or your 
chance will soon come as to whether or not Senators want to buy on for 
a long time. Who knows, perhaps a good case can be made for it. Perhaps 
a good case can be made. But I haven't heard it as yet. This Senator 
from West Virginia is not in there for a good long time. Not yet, 
certainly. The administration was being disingenuous. Those who came up 
here and testified last year--obviously they had to say what the 
administration had required them to say. They all came up before the 
committees and it was like a broken record to hear everybody say 
practically the same thing, ``We will be there about a year, about a 
year.'' Well, they are the people who are supposed to know. So that is 
what we were told.
  But I don't believe this is going to be an indefinite free ride. I 
think the administration ought to have to make its case this time, and 
it ought to be required to give more specifics, more facts, more 
reasoning, more reasons for its program. The terms of our involvement 
are turning into a permanent force, turning into a permanent force, and 
the pressure to get out is dissipating. The pressure for our allies to 
take the lead is evaporating, evaporating.
  The distinguished Presiding Officer has stood on some afternoons and 
seen the Sun ``drawing up water,'' as they say. The Sun's rays will be 
peeping through a cloud and we are told that the Sun is drawing up 
water. But water is evaporating. I often pour water into my little 
fountain for my birds over in McLean and the water evaporates after a 
while. The birds get some of it, but it also evaporates.
  Likewise the pressure for our allies to take the lead is evaporating. 
Our combat forces are going to be there for years if the report is 
accurate. And the funding is to the tune of some $2 billion per year 
through regular, so-called ``emergency'' supplementals. Now, are our 
allies being asked to defray any of these costs? I support this 
supplemental request for fiscal year 1998, but the fiscal year 1999 
cost of nearly $2 billion should be debated again, when the regular 
authorization and appropriations bills are considered on this floor.
  We need to debate this regularly because we are spending your money. 
One of the network's TV programs from time to time talks about spending 
``your money'' and gives examples of projects from time to time that 
are being supported by Members of Congress or perhaps others, and they 
will say, ``This is your money.'' Well, we need to debate this request 
because we are spending your money, the taxpayers' money. And we need 
to get some answers.
  Now, when we turn to Southwest Asia, the situation seems to be even 
worse. Not only do we have 30,000 troops in the region waiting for the 
signal to go after the Iraqi regime, but our allies are not there with 
us.
  We look over our shoulders and we don't see anybody. Where are they? 
It reminds me of the first question that was ever asked through all the 
eternity, all time and eternity, that preceded the making of the world, 
the universe. The first question that was ever asked, when God, walking 
in the cool of the evening, was seeking Adam and Eve, and they were not 
to be found, and then God said, ``Adam, Adam, where art thou?'' The 
first question.
  So, we should say to our friends and our allies, where art thou in 
this matter? Many countries of the world are not in that immediate 
region but they depend upon oil from that region. Why are they not 
assisting? Why are we not asking them to assist? The President, in his 
report to Congress, speaks about leadership. In other words, we, the 
eldest remaining superpower, must provide the leadership. Well, it 
comes with a price tag. I take it we are all providing the money, 
apparently all of us. We are not asking our friends. We are going to do 
it whole hog this time. Our friends in the Arab world are cool, to say 
the least, about building an effective coalition to enforce the U.N. 
inspections team on Saddam Hussein. Meanwhile, we continue to pony up 
to the tune of $1.3 billion for this current fiscal year.
  My colleagues should be aware that the committee adopted an amendment 
which I offered and which our distinguished chairman, Mr. Stevens, 
cosponsored urging the President to go out and get contributions from 
our friends and allies for financial help, in kind, and other support 
to share the burden in Southwest Asia against a

[[Page S2384]]

threat to world peace. Go out and get a little help. People downtown 
might start out by reading Shakespeare, read about Timon of Athens. 
Read Shakespeare's ``The Life of Timon of Athens.'' He, too, sought to 
get help from his friends. After he had squandered his own wealth on 
his friends, he sought to get some help from them. One day the 
bookkeeper said, ``Look, Master, we are out of money. You are broke.'' 
Old Timon said, ``I am sure my friends will help me. You go see this 
fellow over here and then go see that one over there--I helped him one 
day--and this one over here, go see him.''
  Well, Timon was disappointed. He didn't get any help.
  I urge the administration to go out and get contributions from our 
friends and allies for financial help, in kind, and other support to 
share the burden in Southwest Asia against a threat to world peace. We 
fully expect a vigorous campaign by the administration to create an 
effective international political coalition where the burden is shared. 
This will take a great deal of effort on the part of the 
administration's foreign policy team. They talk about all this big debt 
we owe the U.N. Why not charge off some of the costs that we have been 
spending and that we are yet spending and that we will continue to 
spend for a while in dealing with the threat of Saddam Hussein. How 
about that, Mr. U.N.? How about giving us some credit on those 
expenditures? We ought to try. We expect that an effort will be made on 
the part of the administration's foreign policy team, and it will 
result in a wide-ranging political effort to isolate the regime 
currently in power in Iraq.
  We face a situation of grave weight and precedent in dealing with 
this transparent attempt to intimidate the world with weapons of mass 
destruction. How we handle this threat will be of great importance for 
the future of effective efforts to control the proliferation of 
weapons, components, and delivery systems of mass destruction. It is 
the future of arms control, and we need to pay great attention to it. 
That is why I offered this amendment in the committee. That is why Mr. 
Stevens, the chairman of the committee, supported it.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the committee's 
recommendations as it brings forth this bill, S. 1768. I again commend 
my chairman and express my appreciation to him for the excellent work 
he has put forth in bringing the bill to the floor. Also, I thank him 
for his courtesy and for the good will and friendship that he has 
continued to extend toward me.
  Now, Mr. President, are amendments in order to the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Amendments may be 
offered.


                           Amendment No. 2062

   (Purpose: To establish an emergency commission to study the trade 
                                deficit)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself and 
     Mr. Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 2062.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have offered this amendment on behalf of 
myself and the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan. I 
am very pleased to join with the distinguished Senator from North 
Dakota in introducing an ambitious new effort on the matter of the 
Nation's persistent and growing trade deficit. Mr. Dorgan has taken the 
floor time after time after time and spoken eloquently and very 
knowledgeably concerning the perennial trade deficits that seem ever to 
grow larger. This legislation would establish a commission to take a 
broad, thorough look at all important aspects of trends involving and 
solutions to the growing U.S. trade deficit, with particular attention 
to the manufacturing sector.
  The trade deficit, as my colleagues know, is a recent phenomenon--
recent in terms of its being over a period of recent years--with large 
annual deficits only occurring within the last 15 years or so. Between 
1970 and 1996, the U.S. merchandise trade balance shifted from a 
surplus of $3.2 billion--did you hear me, Senators? Our merchandise 
trade balance has shifted from a surplus of $3.2 billion to a deficit, 
in 1996, of $199 billion. That is $199 billion. As my colleague, Mr. 
Dorgan, has suggested, projections by econometric forecasting firms 
indicate that long-term trends will bring this figure to $300 billion, 
or more, within the next 10 years. So hold on to your hats. The deficit 
was $199 billion in 1996, but long-term trends indicate that the figure 
will go to $300 billion, or more. You better hold on to two hats. It is 
going to really take off within the next 10 years. No one is predicting 
a decline in the near future. Sounds kind of like the stock market, 
doesn't it? This is bad news about the trade deficit. Thus, unless we 
act, our trade deficits will soon exceed our annual appropriations for 
the Department of Defense.
  Mr. President, $2 million is made available in this amendment to 
establish a 12-member congressional commission to be known as the trade 
deficit emergency review commission, with three members each to be 
named by the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and by the 
Speaker and minority leader of the House. At least two of those 
individuals are to be Senators, and at least two are to be Members of 
the other body. The purpose of the commission shall be to study the 
causes and the consequences of the U.S. merchandise trade and current 
account deficits and to develop trade policy recommendations for the 
21st century. The recommendations shall include strategies necessary to 
achieve market access to foreign markets that fully reflect the 
competitiveness and productivity of the United States and also improve 
the standard of living in the United States.
  While it is not clear what the particular reasons for this growing 
trade deficit may be nor what the long-term impacts of a persistently 
growing deficit may be, the time is overdue for a detailed examination 
of the factors causing the deficit. We need to understand the impacts 
of it on specific industrial and manufacturing sectors. We need to 
identify the gaps that exist in our databases and economic measurements 
to understand specifically the impacts of the deficit on such important 
things as our manufacturing capacity and the integrity of our 
industrial base on productivity, on jobs, and on wages in specific 
sectors.
  From time to time, we debate the trade deficits. Both Senator Dorgan 
and I and other Senators have participated in these debates. Senator 
Dorgan is an expert on the subject. I voted against NAFTA, I voted 
against GATT, and for good reasons, which every day seem to be becoming 
clearer and clearer. So we debate these deficits frequently. We moan 
and we groan, we weep and we shed great tears by the bucketsful. We 
complain about them, but if we do not understand the nature, the 
impacts, and the long-term vulnerabilities that such manufacturing 
imbalances create in our economy and standard of living, we are in the 
dark.

  It appears to me that debate over trade matters too often takes on 
the form of lofty rhetorical bombast of so-called ``protections'' 
versus so-called ``free trade agreements.'' But I suggest that neither 
side knows enough about what is really transpiring in our economy, 
given the very recent nature of these annual persistent deficits. 
Certainly, we know that the deficits reflect on the ability of American 
business to compete abroad. We want to be competitive. Certainly, we 
know that specific deficits with specific trading partners cause 
frictions between the United States and those friends and allies. This 
is particularly the case with the Japanese, as we are well aware, and 
is becoming quickly the case with China. It will only be when we truly 
understand the specific impacts of this large deficit on our economy--
particularly our industrial and manufacturing base--that the importance 
of insisting on fair play on the trade account will be clear.
  Finally, the legislation requires the commission to examine 
alternative

[[Page S2385]]

strategies--big words, ``alternative strategies''--which we can pursue 
to achieve the systematic reduction of the deficit, and particularly 
how to retard the migration of our manufacturing base abroad and the 
changes that might be needed to our basic trade agreements and 
practices.
  These are the purposes of the commission that Senator Dorgan, I, and 
other Senators are proposing in this legislation.
  I join in welcoming other Senators. I join with Senator Dorgan in 
welcoming other Senators to cosponsor the legislation. Senator Dorgan 
will speak later this afternoon on this subject matter. I again thank 
him for the leadership that he has been providing and continues to 
provide on this subject matter.
  I urge Senators to support the amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the amendment we are considering deals 
with a subject I have spoken about on the floor many, many times called 
the Federal trade deficit, the national trade deficit. I know some will 
roll their eyes when I talk about the trade deficit, because I have 
come to the floor very often to talk about this issue. But it is 
critically important, and I want to explain why I care about this issue 
and why the Senator from West Virginia and I have offered the amendment 
that we have.
  The amendment itself is an emergency commission to end the trade 
deficit. It establishes a commission to study the current trade deficit 
that we have and to make recommendations to Congress on strategies and 
approaches that we may use to deal with the trade deficit.
  I would like to proceed by describing just a bit my concern about the 
trade deficit. There are a lot of things in this country that are going 
right. Many Americans take a look at this economy and they say, gee, 
the country is in pretty good shape. The Federal budget deficit is 
down, down, way down. Inflation is down, down, down 5 years in a row, 6 
years in a row. Unemployment is down. The crime rate is down. The 
welfare rolls are down. Most people would think this country is doing 
quite well.

  That is the case. It certainly is true. There are, however, some 
small-craft warnings out there dealing with the trade deficit. The 
trade deficit is the one economic indicator that is not going down; it 
is going up. Our trade deficit is increasing. The last 4 years in a row 
we have had the largest trade deficit, merchandise trade deficit, in 
the history of this country. And this year it will increase once again.
  In order to talk about trade just for a moment, I want to begin by 
talking about the parochial issues that affect North Dakota, among 
others--the Canadian grain imports to the United States.
  It seems to me every time we have a trade agreement, we end up with 
the short end of the stick. We had a trade agreement with Canada, and 
look what happens to grain coming into the United States from Canada. 
Here is what was going on before we had a trade agreement, and here are 
the massive quantities of imports into this country since the trade 
agreement, undercutting our farmers, markets, lowering our grain 
prices, costing, according to North Dakota State University, $220 
million a year out of the pockets of North Dakota farmers.
  So am I concerned about that? Sure I am. Because you cannot get the 
similar kind of grain into Canada. I have told my colleagues before 
that one day I drove to the Canadian border with a man named Earl 
Jensen in a 12-year-old orange truck. We pulled up to the Canadian 
border with 200 bushels of durum wheat.
  All the way to the border we saw semitruckload after semitruckload, 
perhaps two dozen of them, coming into this country hauling Canadian 
durum. When Earl and I got to the Canadian border with his 12-year-old 
orange truck with 200 bushels of durum, we were told, ``We're sorry, 
but you can't take United States durum into Canada.'' My question was, 
``Why? Did I not just see a dozen semitruckloads or two dozen 
semitruckloads of Canadian durum coming into the United States?'' 
``Yes.'' ``Don't we have a trade agreement with you?'' ``Yes.'' ``Then 
why can't we take American durum, U.S. durum, into Canada?'' ``Because 
that's the way the trade agreement works,'' we were told.
  It is not the way a thoughtful trade agreement would work and not the 
way that a trade agreement that was thoughtfully negotiated would work, 
but it may be the way this one works. This is precisely my point about 
the trade problem we have in this country. Every time our negotiators 
go out and negotiate another trade agreement, they seem to lose in the 
first 2 weeks.
  Will Rogers, 60 years ago, said, ``The United States of America has 
never lost a war and never won a conference.'' He surely must have been 
thinking about trade negotiators.
  Now, let me describe to you this merchandise trade deficit. You see 
this red ink? The merchandise trade deficit is 22 years old--22 
straight years of trade deficits, 35 of 36 years of trade deficits. And 
you see, this is not getting better; it is getting worse. It is not 
just getting worse; it is getting much worse. Some would say, ``Well, 
let's ignore that. Let's just ignore it. It doesn't matter.'' It does 
matter. The trade deficit ultimately is going to be repaid with a lower 
standard of living in this country. We had better worry about it and 
better do something to deal with it.
  The merchandise trade deficit was a record in 1997. Here are the 
projections by the U.S. Department of Commerce and Standard and Poors 
of what will happen to the trade deficit in the next 4 years. Is this 
good news? I don't think so. It is successive and alarming--continued 
trade deficits year after year after year.
  Now, Mr. President, there are a number of reasons for the trade 
deficits. I will describe one of them, for example, currency 
valuations. If you take a look at this chart, you will see what happens 
when we compare foreign currencies versus U.S. dollars. The Japanese 
yen, fallen; the Mexican peso fell through the basement; the Canadian 
dollar, way down; the Taiwan dollar, apparently subbasement here; the 
Thai dollar and Indonesian dollar, down--you see what has happened in 
every one of these? What does this mean?

  It means that when you have a trade agreement and you reduce tariffs, 
and a currency fluctuation like this exists, foreign goods are less 
expensive in the United States and U.S. goods are more expensive in 
foreign countries. Therefore, we see fewer exports and more imports 
and, therefore, a huge trade deficit--33 consecutive years of 
merchandise trade deficits with Japan.
  Let me talk just for a moment about Japan, China, Canada, Mexico.
  Japan. Here is our trade relationship with Japan. The Japanese are 
sharp. The Japanese have said to us, ``Here is the way we're going to 
trade with you. By the way, our relationship with you is going to be 
that we're going to flood your market with Japanese goods, and when you 
want to get American goods into the Japanese market, good luck.''
  Oh, we get some goods into the Japanese market, but we do not get 
nearly enough of the things we need to get in to reduce this trade 
deficit. You know all of the standard brands that come in. People say 
this is good for our consumers. Well, in some ways it could be good for 
our consumers, but wouldn't it be good for our producers, wouldn't it 
be good for our wage earners, the people who have jobs in this country, 
if we could take this amount of red and say that is what we are going 
to put into Japan in products made by Americans who are earning a wage 
and earning benefits and have a good job?
  The Japanese, for example, fill our country with their goods, and 
then they say to us, ``By the way, when you send beef to Japan, there 
is a 47 percent tariff on every pound of beef going into Japan.'' So, a 
T-bone steak in Tokyo is $30, $35 a pound. Why? Because we do not get 
enough beef into Japan. In fact, the 47 percent tariff is our success 
rate, that is after we negotiated a beef agreement with Japan.
  How many other countries would say it is a success if they were to 
have a 47 percent tariff on something imported into the United States? 
They would say that is a colossal failure. They would say the United 
States is failing to meet its responsibilities towards opening expanded 
fair and free trade. But the Japanese have a 47 percent tariff on beef. 
Nobody whispers a thing about it. All the while we have a literal tide 
of red

[[Page S2386]]

ink year after year after year that now reaches $50 billion and $60 
billion every year.
  Now, I ask the question on behalf of those who want to export to 
Japan and want the jobs that come with those exports, the jobs that pay 
well, that have decent benefits, I ask the question: When are we going 
to do something about this? When are we going to do something about 
this trade deficit? And who is going to stand up and say, let us do it?
  Now, this exists, at least in part, because the Japanese will not 
allow our goods in, but also in part because of corporations who want 
to do business on both sides and think this is just fine. As long as 
they are selling goods both ways, they don't care who ends up 
swallowing the red ink. In fact, with respect to other countries like 
China, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and dozens of other countries, 
the largest corporations think it is a wonderful thing to be able to 
produce where you can produce dirt cheap and then sell the goods in the 
United States. That is part of this trade deficit as well.
  China now has a nearly $50 billion trade deficit with this country--
nearly $50 billion. And it has ratcheted up, as you can see, very 
quickly. China sees the American marketplace as a market in which they 
can move a substantial amount of their produce from trousers to shirts 
to shoes to electronics. You name it, the Chinese send it. And, yes, 
trinkets and toys. The Chinese send all these products to our country.
  Now, China, of course, does not buy nearly enough wheat from us, 
something we produce in great quantity. Oh, they are worried about all 
kinds of things, and they are price shopping elsewhere while they are 
ratcheting up this huge trade surplus with us; for us a deficit with 
them.

  China, for example, desperately needs airplanes. They have a lot of 
people. They are going to need apparently about 2,000 airplanes in the 
coming couple of decades. China is saying, ``By the way, yeah, we'll 
buy a few airplanes from you, but what we want to do is move your 
airplane manufacturing capability to China.'' They say to Boeing, 
``Yeah, we'll buy Boeing airplanes, but produce them in China.'' That 
is not the way the trade works. If we are buying what China produces, 
they have a responsibility, when we produce something, to buy it from 
our country. That is the way in which we reduce this trade deficit.
  There are some in this country, and some enterprises, who make a lot 
of money because of this trade deficit. They say, ``Well, gee, we're 
making a lot of profit for our stockholders. We hire a kid 14 years 
old, and we can work that kid 14 hours a day. We can pay that kid 14 
cents an hour, and we can make a lot of money by shipping the product 
that child makes to the U.S. marketplace.''
  Yes, there are children today who are earning 14 cents an hour. They 
produce, for example, a pair of shoes that has 20 cents of direct labor 
in the pair of shoes, and it is sent to a store shelf in Pittsburgh or 
Fargo or Edina or Los Angeles and sold for $80 a pair--with 20 cents of 
labor. Is that a good deal for the producer? Sure. That means higher 
profits for the corporations. It means fewer jobs here in this country 
and it means a swollen trade deficit for America.
  In the long term, we need to construct a trade strategy that says to 
producers that there is an admission price to our economy. We are a 
leader in world trade. We are a leader in open trade. But we demand as 
a country fair trade. Our country needs to say to this administration 
and to future administrations, as we have said to past ones, that when 
we negotiate a trade agreement, we expect the agreement to be in this 
country's best economic interest.
  You cannot tell me that having negotiated, as our Government has, a 
trade agreement with Mexico and Canada that turns sour immediately and 
costs us several hundred thousand lost jobs in this country and has 
increased our deficit with Canada, an agreement which took a surplus in 
Mexico and immediately turned that into a huge deficit, you cannot tell 
me that is success. It is a failure. We ought to expect more from our 
trade negotiators, and we ought to expect a better trade policy in this 
country.
  American trade deficits have grown under the trade agreements. This 
chart shows what has happened with both Canada and Mexico. It shows 
that we had a surplus with Mexico, and we turned it immediately into a 
deficit. With Canada, the deficit has increased. It seems to me that is 
not progress.
  Now, the commission that we have recommended--Senator Byrd and 
myself--we have suggested that the commission should develop trade 
policy recommendations by examining the impacts on investments, the 
impacts on domestic wages and prices, the causes and consequence of 
trade deficits I have just discussed, the barriers to trade, the 
relationship of tariff and nontariff trade barriers to bilateral 
deficits, the comparative and competitive trade advantages that exist, 
the effects of labor, environmental health and safety standards on 
trade.
  The series of things that we want to occur with this trade deficit 
commission are simple. We want all the spotlights to shine on the same 
spot on the question of trade. We believe the trade deficit injures 
this country. And we believe the trade deficit that is growing is 
counterproductive to our future economic progress.
  Mr. President, all of us have read about the Asian financial crisis. 
I have described a swollen trade deficit prior to the Asian crisis. The 
Asian currency crisis, as shown by last week's announcement of that the 
trade deficit continues to grow, is exacerbating the problem. In fact, 
last month's trade deficit was the highest in history. What we now 
understand is that Asian crisis, that Asian financial crisis, will 
inevitably continue to put upward pressure on these trade deficits.

  That is why we think it is time to turn to this subject in earnest as 
a country and decide what is wrong and what is right. How do we fix 
what is wrong? And how do we strengthen what is right?
  As I conclude, I want to again point out that I have come to the 
floor very often and talked about trade. And instantly people, when you 
talk about trade, decide that there are only two sides to the trade 
issue--protectionists and the free traders. They could not be more 
wrong.
  I believe very much in expanded trade. I come from a State in which 
nearly one-half of our production is in agriculture that must find a 
foreign home. But we also understand in our State that there are 
certain requirements when we negotiate agreements and treaties, 
especially in trade, that demand this country be treated fairly. It was 
all right just after the Second World War to have a trade policy that 
was essentially stimulated by foreign policy considerations, but it is 
not all right any more. We now face tough, shrewd economic competitors. 
And it is not satisfactory to me, and I believe not satisfactory to 
this country, to allow other countries to ratchet up huge, huge trade 
surpluses with us or force us into having huge trade deficits with them 
and see that circumstance weaken our manufacturing sector in this 
country, and weaken the capability of having long-term good jobs that 
pay well, with benefits.
  Anyone who believes that it does not matter when you weaken your 
manufacturing sector does not understand what makes a good, strong 
country viable in the long term. You cannot survive as a world economic 
power unless you have a viable, strong, growing, vibrant manufacturing 
sector. And that is what all of this is about.
  This country and its producers and its workers can, should, and will 
compete anywhere in the world, any time. But we should not be expected 
to compete against the conditions of production that we see existing in 
some parts of the world, nor should we be expected to compete when the 
rules are not fair. We ought not expect our trading partners to flood 
our market with goods and then close their market to American producers 
and American workers. That is not fair trade. It is not right for the 
future of this country.

  I thank the Senator from Alaska for his courtesy. I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S2387]]

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the amendment that is pending is the Byrd 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. This amendment now has been cleared on this side of the 
aisle. I am prepared to accept that on behalf of the committee, and I 
urge Senators to request its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from West Virginia.
  The amendment (No. 2062) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are other Senators coming with 
amendments. I urge Senators to come and take advantage of today. It is 
the right period of time to clear an amendment that any Senator wishes 
us to agree to without debate.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the name of Mr. 
Sarbanes be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator add my name?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask that the name of the distinguished 
chairman of the committee, Mr. Stevens, be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand Senator Feingold is seeking 
the floor to speak as in morning business, which we do not object to, 
provided there would be no amendments introduced to this bill during 
that period. I ask the Senator how much time he would like to have.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's remarks and 
respectfully request 30 minutes as in morning business. I have no 
intention of introducing any amendment on this bill at this time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Under those circumstances, I ask unanimous consent the 
Senator be recognized for that period of time and that I regain the 
floor at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Wisconsin.

                          ____________________