[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10814-S10815]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO AMERICA'S WORKING FAMILIES

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, once again, I come to the floor to express 
my opposition to fast-track procedures. Fast-track procedures were 
soundly defeated last year by this body, but were resurrected by the 
Senate Finance Committee as part of a trade bill reported under its 
jurisdiction.
  In reviewing the trade bill reported by the Senate Finance Committee, 
I am reminded of a remark attributed to Napoleon in referring to one 
time political-supporter-turned-foe, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-
Perigord. Purportedly, Napoleon referenced Talleyrand as ``a silk 
stocking filled with mud,'' believing that Talleyrand's costume and 
charm covered nothing but light-mindedness and egotism. Regardless of 
the legitimacy of Napoleon's remark, ``a silk stocking filled with 
mud'' is exactly my expectation of what would result from the 
provisions of the trade bill reported by the Senate Finance Committee. 
The bill's supporters have proclaimed a trade package promising 
lucrative U.S. economic gains, and have tried to stake out a claim to 
the moral high ground in the name of free trade. The rhetoric may extol 
a very pretty package, indeed, but, I am not sold by packaging. 
American workers simply cannot afford pleasing packaged rhetoric that 
in reality might leave them in an uphill fight, through an 
international thicket, to save their jobs.
  In addition to the certainty that current fast-track trade 
negotiating authority offers no guarantee to the average American 
worker, my colleagues should take heed that, likewise, no certainty 
exists that rosy international economic predictions linked to fast-
track authority would come true. Take a look at the current global 
economic crisis. There are no guarantees.
  I have listened to my colleagues who urge support of the fast-track 
process, but I cannot, and I will not, vote to undermine a 
responsibility assigned to Congress through the Constitution. That 
responsibility is ``to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations'' and to 
``lay and collect * * * Duties, Imposts and Excises''--a responsibility 
that this legislation appears bent on diminishing.
  Clearly, under the Constitution, the Senate is to have a meaningful 
role in trade negotiations. Likely, the Founding Fathers recognized the 
different institutional interests that affect trade negotiations and, 
thus, crafted provisions to provide checks and balances to ensure that 
the broad interests of the states--and the people--are protected. By 
side-stepping the Senate's authority in trade negotiations, we are 
circumventing the framework set up by the Founders to help guarantee 
that the total national interest is met. We are playing dangerously 
with the basic premises that underlie our system of checks and 
balances, and separation of powers.

  I note that many of my colleagues feel that the fast-track 
legislation under consideration sufficiently revises past trade 
negotiating authority to ensure that Congress' constitutional role in 
the regulation of foreign trade is preserved. Particularly, in this 
regard, supporters are touting the bill's beefed-up notice and 
consultation provisions as achieving the proper balance of power 
between the executive and legislative branches of government.
  I am supportive of continuous dialogue between the Administration and 
the Congress throughout any trade negotiating process. That would seem 
like a commonsense approach to me. But guidelines and cursory oversight 
provisions simply do not fulfill the Senate's constitutional role in 
foreign trade, and these new consultation and

[[Page S10815]]

notification provisions can not overshadow the bill's basic 
shortcomings. That basic flaw is that the Congress through this measure 
hands the President broad authority to initiate, negotiate, and present 
trade agreements to the Congress. The Congress must then consider those 
agreements by an up-or-down vote with little or no debate and no 
opportunity to offer amendments.
  That is where we get off the track. They may call it the fast-track 
process. But that is where we leave the constitutional track. That is 
where we leave the track, which under the Constitution, says that the 
Senate has the right to offer amendments.
  While the Members on the committees of jurisdiction may have the 
opportunity to influence and develop the implementing legislation, for 
all practical purposes, this bill obliterates the voices of most of the 
Members of Congress when it comes to international trade agreements.
  The Constitution says that revenue measures shall originate in the 
House of Representatives but that the Senate may amend as on other 
bills. But here in this so-called fast track, the agreement is 
presented to the Senate to accept--up or down, with no amendments in 
order.
  Take it all or nothing. Frankly, I have little faith that 
consultations with the administration will have much impact--this or 
any other administration, if we are to be guided by recent 
administrations.
  Such consultations--with this or any administration--usually do not 
yield significant results. They have not thus far, in recent years 
certainly.
  So consult and notify as you will, but I am well aware of the 
likelihood that the President will sign an agreement, an implementing 
bill will stealthily materialize, and Senators will be provided with an 
immense document which they have little ability to change.
  It is take it or leave it. This is where we leave the track. This is 
where we part company as far as I am concerned. Under this bill, 
Senators' ``meaningful'' role in trade pacts will continue to be a yes-
or-no vote on legislation that can affect millions of American workers 
and their communities.
  Perhaps I would be more enthusiastic about fast-track procedures if I 
believed that past trade agreements implemented under fast-track rules 
were beneficial to the nation as a whole.
  Regrettably, I believe that past agreements, such as the North 
American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, which I voted against, have 
poorly represented the concerns of the average American worker.
  By eroding the carefully crafted checks and balances provided under 
the Constitution, our current trade policy poorly represents the 
broader interests of American society.
  Why can't the Senate be given an opportunity to at least offer 1 or 2 
or 3 or 4 amendments? I am not suggesting that the Senate ought to be 
the arbiter over every little, teensy-weensy item in a trade agreement. 
I am not suggesting that at all. Obviously, we can't do that. But to 
say that the Senate cannot amend, can offer no amendments is off the 
track. To me that doesn't comport with the Constitution which provides 
that the Senate may offer amendments to bills.
  Trade agreements, in principle as well as in practice, always have 
winners and losers. I believe the underlying issue for the average 
American worker is precisely who benefits most from our trade 
negotiations. I believe that the average American worker perceives that 
a select few U.S. industries keep winning, while other domestic 
industries keep losing, and that the promised ``trickle down'' of 
benefits from the winners to the losers never actually trickles.
  Some will say that the benefits have not yet had time to trickle 
down. But data available today demonstrate a most distressing trend 
toward U.S. income inequality. That is: the rich keep getting richer 
and the poor keep getting poorer. Under fast-track rules, Senators 
cannot challenge trade provisions that appear inappropriate or unfair. 
They cannot question trade provisions which seem to contain juicy deals 
for specific industries or companies, but hold few guarantees for the 
average American worker just trying to make ends meet, take care of 
family responsibilities, and save a little bit for retirement.
  Thus, it should be no mystery to Members of Congress as to why the 
American public is increasingly skeptical about our trade policies. 
During the NAFTA debate there were promises that the agreement would 
create lucrative economic gains for Americans--all Americans. American 
workers remember this promise, and they have judged that the promised 
gains have not materialized.
  We need to wise up. Our trade negotiators are under strong pressures 
from certain influential industry sectors in our economy to negotiate 
deals which benefit them. To achieve these deals, our negotiators often 
offer our trading partners concessions, such as tariff reductions that 
adversely affect less influential U.S. industries. Such concessions, I 
believe, are not usually properly reviewed. Too often, the benefits 
achieved in our trade agreements are insignificant compared with the 
costs to the individual workers, and the total costs to the economy. 
Worse, many of the negotiated provisions to benefit U.S. industries 
fail to materialize because our trading partners fail to implement the 
promised reforms.
  Therefore, we end up imposing enormous costs on various groups and 
segments of our economy and wind up with nothing to show for the 
damage. We end up with that pretty silk stocking filled with worthless 
mud.
  Average American workers live in my state of West Virginia. They work 
hard for their money, very hard indeed. They labor in the coal mines, 
on small family-operated farms, in steel, glass or chemical 
manufacturing plants. These hard-working families deserve a fair slice 
of the pie. These and other American workers elected the various 
members of this body to look after their interests in national trade 
matters. Senators simply cannot adequately fulfill this obligation 
under fast-track procedures.
  The Constitution established a system of government that has served 
the United States well for over 200 years. It created a nation filled 
with the promise of opportunity for all. It is our duty to do our best 
to make certain that the interests of every American are considered 
when it comes to matters of trade.
  We live in an increasingly globalized world economy. I am not a 
protectionist and I am not against fair and free trade. But I would 
vote to preserve the Senate's essential role in its right to amend 
bills and in regulating foreign commerce. I would vote against fast-
track procedures, as I have in the past, procedures that camouflage 
provisions that simply might not be acceptable to the majority of 
Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the institutional and 
practical problems that fast track presents. The Constitution is clear: 
Congress is assigned the power ``to regulate Commerce with foreign 
Nations: and to ``lay and collect duties, imposts and excises.''
  The Constitution is also clear on the point that the Senate has the 
power and the right to amend legislation that comes before this body.
  Let us not again so easily relinquish our constitutional power when 
it comes to issues of such importance to American working families.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for a period of 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, how much time?
  Mr. GREGG. Five minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from New 
Hampshire is recognized.

                          ____________________