[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 159 (Friday, November 16, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11985-S11987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAST TRACK
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I stood in this place last Friday to warn
Congress that we must not allow the administration to arrogate to
itself the full authority to determine the trade policy of the United
States, that we must not be asleep at the wheel as the one-sided trade
jalopy goes rumbling down the fast track--the fast track. There we go
again.
For what this Congress calls fast track, the administration uses the
euphemistic term ``trade promotion authority.'' Trade promotion
authority--it certainly has an innocent enough sound. It is a sound
that is rather sweet to the ears--trade promotion authority. But lift
up the cover of this euphemistic term, lift the cover, just peep a
little under it, and you will find the real villain: fast track, fast-
track authority.
So last Friday I stood in my place here and said to Congress that we
must not allow the administration to arrogate to itself the authority
to determine the trade policy of the United States, that we must not be
asleep at the wheel ``as the one-sided trade jalopy'' goes rumbling
down the fast track. I was referring, of course, as I say, to the
administration's request, its wolf in sheep's clothing request for
special authority to negotiate trade agreements that would not be
subject to normal rules of debate and amendment.
I was also referring to the penchants of Presidents, both Republican
and Democrat, in these more recent years to offer our trading partners
unilateral concessions in exchange for the mantle of global leadership.
As Jackie Gleason used to say, ``How sweet it is''--to wear the mantle
of global leadership.
The news from Doha, Qatar, confirms my worst fears. According to the
Wall Street Journal, our trade negotiator, Ambassador Robert Zoellick,
``led the way in making extraordinary concessions to developing
countries,'' including ``agreeing to renegotiate America's anti-dumping
laws.''
I quote a little further from the Wall Street Journal news story.
U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Zoellick faced a stark choice when
he arrived in Doha, Qatar, last week: He could win either
fast-track negotiating authority from Congress or a new round
of trade talks.
To get a World Trade Organization deal, Mr. Zoellick would
have to make concessions to poor countries that would so
infuriate Congress that lawmakers wouldn't grant fast-track
authority. To get fast track, which would allow President
Bush to negotiate trade deals that Congress could approve or
reject, but not amend, he would have to
[[Page S11986]]
make concessions to liberal Democrats that would so anger
poorer countries that they wouldn't open new trade talks.
On Monday, Mr. Zoellick announced his decision to a group
of ministers and delegates at the convention center in Doha,
where the WTO was meeting. The U.S., he said, would cede to
their demands to allow negotiations on America's hated
antidumping laws, which punish other countries that ``dump''
products on the U.S. market at below cost.
Before going to Qatar, Mr. Zoellick said he was fed up with
Democrats' demands for more concessions on fast track. He
pointed to his decision to allow a big steel trade case to go
forward, which could temporarily shutter the U.S. market to
some foreign steel. He said his fast-track proposal also
addressed labor and environmental concerns of Democrats. ``At
some point, people are going to have to decide if they can
take yes for an answer,'' Mr. Zoellick said.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire story from the
Wall Street Journal of November 16 be printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1).
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, so you see Mr. Zoellick, according to the
Wall Street Journal, ``led the way in making extraordinary concessions
to developing countries,'' including ``agreeing to renegotiate
America's anti-dumping laws.'' Among the big winners, according to the
Journal, were foreign steel makers and big multinational manufacturers.
The big losers? Guess. I will give you one guess. U.S. steel makers and
auto makers are the big losers.
Our trading partners, who often protect their home markets by turning
a blind eye to anticompetitive practices by their big manufacturers,
hypocritically call our trade laws ``protectionist,'' and they find
allies here in the United States among those who claim for themselves
the banner of ``free trade.'' Let us be clear: the American people
demand that the fruits of their labor be able to compete without fear
of foreign predation. They want trade that is both free and fair.
Let us also clear away--once and for all--the cant about
``protectionism.'' Our antidumping law is based on a very simple
requirement for foreign manufacturers. What is it? Do not injure
producers in our market by selling below cost or charging less here
than you charge in your home market. The plain fact is that foreign
producers of certain products, such as steel and autos and lumber, dump
in America year after year after year, and put all of their efforts
into weakening our antidumping laws. Their home governments, whose
markets are much less open than ours, work fist-in-glove with these
predators.
Our countervailing duty law, which the Administration has also placed
on the negotiating table, is no more protectionist than our antidumping
law. The law is based on a very simple requirement for foreign
governments: Do not seek trade advantages by subsidizing the production
of merchandise that your companies sell in the United States. Hands
off. If you do, we will apply an offsetting tax to the unfairly traded
goods that come into our country.
Why should we permit our trade laws to be eviscerated by foreign
interests? What possible rationale could there be for putting our
antidumping and countervailing duty laws on the negotiating table? Is
it to further distort competition to the disadvantage of U.S.
producers?
Let me give you an example of what passes for a so-called
``legitimate'' trade dispute in the eyes of many of our trading
partners. In many countries, government-owned steel companies have been
the beneficiaries of massive subsidization over a period of decades.
Without these subsidies, the steel companies would simply not exist in
those countries. They would be gone with the wind. After pouring
billions of dollars into a government-owned company, the foreign
government then sells it off for pennies on the dollar--pennies on the
dollar, or pennies from heaven. The newly privatized company, which
wants to sell its subsidized overcapacity in the United States, then
has the audacity to claim a ``privatization exemption'' from U.S.
countervailing duties. Mind you, there is nothing in any agreement to
which we are a party that gives privatized companies such an exemption.
Nevertheless, under current international rules, the United States must
fight like the dickens to apply countervailing duties in these
situations. What will happen after we put our trade laws on the
negotiating table?
In short, the United States must not capitulate, Mr. President, to
these foreign predators. More to the point, Congress--the body which is
closest to the people--must not cede its authority over foreign
commerce to the Chief Executive.
The Framers of the Constitution did not cede that authority to the
Executive, no. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress
the exclusive authority over such matters.
Let's take a look at article I, section 8, of the Constitution, which
I hold in my hand. What does it say? Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power--
It does not say the executive branch; it does not say the President
of the United States; it does not say that vaunted title: The Commander
in Chief--
The Constitution says:
The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations--
Aha, there it is. There it is in black and white. Read it and run.
The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with
the Indian Tribes. . . .
Well, you say, Congress can delegate certain authority. Well, that is
true. But can it delegate the authority given to the Congress by the
Constitution to debate and amend? And that is what we do. That is what
we do when we support something like fast track.
So, Mr. President, the Constitution is what I have just read.
Let the Constitution, our Nation's shining glory, be our guiding
light. Let us demand that our trade negotiators take a strong stand for
American jobs and American values. All countries benefit from
international trade, and all countries must share in the costs of
constructing the framework of that trade.
Now, as I have said many times on this floor--I ought not have to
repeat it--I am not suggesting that Congress get involved in the
minutiae of international trade agreements. I am not suggesting that we
inject ourselves into each little teensy-weensy, itsy-bitsy tariff
determination. Our trade laws, however, are not minutiae. They
represent the sole hope for companies that are being picked apart by
vulturous foreign trading practices.
Communities across America, all across the land--the East, the West,
the North, and the South--are waiting to see whether we are strong
enough to stand up for their interests--their interests--the people's
interests.
They are waiting to see whether the United States will once more be
duped by those whose unabashed--unabashed--motive is to gut the
framework of fair trade. If we stand by the Constitution--if we stand
by the Constitution--that magnificently balanced instrument of the
people, by the people, and for the people, we will not fail our
constituents. As well, we will herald a trade policy for the new
millennium, a trade policy according to which we do not sacrifice hard-
working Americans at the altar, at the altar, at the ``Golden Calf,''
if you please, of nebulous foreign policy objectives, a trade policy
that is based on the pursuit of mutual benefit among sovereign nations.
Now, Mr. President, that is not protectionism. If it is, then I am
for it. That is not protectionism. It is a policy based on the
traditional principles of national sovereignty as well as the absolute
respect of each law-abiding nation for every other such nation. It is a
policy the American people expect, and it is one that we--the elected
representatives of the people--have a constitutional duty to uphold.
May God bless America. But in doing so, may God bless the
Constitution of this Republic. Thank God for that Constitution. I hope
the administration will read it over the Thanksgiving holiday. It might
be well if we ourselves all read it again.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit I
[From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 16, 2001]
Politics & Policy
Zoellick's Trade Concession Wins WTO Talks But Could Cost Bush Fast-
Track Authority
(By Helene Cooper and Shailagh Murray)
Washington.--U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Zoellick faced a stark
choice when he arrived in Doha, Qatar, last week: He could
win
[[Page S11987]]
either fast-track negotiating authority from Congress or a
new round of trade talks.
To get a world Trade Organization deal, Mr. Zoellick, would
have to make concessions to poor countries that would so
infuriate Congress that lawmakers would't grant fast-track
authority. To get fast track, which would allow President
Bush to negotiate trade deals that Congress could approve or
reject, but not amend, he would have to make concessions to
liberal Democrats that would so anger poorer countries that
they wouldn't open new trade talks.
On Monday, Mr. Zoellick announced his decision to a group
of ministers and delegates at the convention center in Doha,
where the WTO was meeting. The U.S., he said, would cede to
their demands to allow negotiations on America's hated
antidumping laws, which punish other countries that ``dump''
products on the U.S. market at below cost.
Bill Klinefelter, the United Steelworkers of America
representative who sent to Doha to keep Mr. Zoellick from
negotiating on U.S. antidumping laws, was furious. Mr.
Zoellick, he said, could ``kiss fast track goodbye. He's
never getting it now.''
The irony is that without fast track, Mr. Zoellick won't be
able to conclude the trade talks launched at the WTO meeting.
Trade envoys hope to wrap us the talks in three years, though
few really believe they will finish that early.
Thursday, lawmakers were still digesting the details of the
Doha agreement. Republicans praised it and said they still
plan to try to get fast track. House Speaker Dennis Hastert
(R., Ill.) said he still hopes to bring fast-track authority
to a vote the week after Thanksgiving. But there is little
chance of passage without some support from moderate
Democrats--and few were cheering.
Mr. Zoellick's fast-track proposal ``was not tenable before
Doha, and it's even less tenable after Doha,'' said Rep
Sander Levin, (D., Mich.) the only lawmaker who attended the
WTO meeting.
House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D., Mo.) told
reporters Mr. Zoellick's concessions were ``negative in terms
of getting agreement on'' fast track. ``They put on the table
for negotiation our antidumping laws,'' he said. ``We are in
the middle of a steel crisis now in terms of losing sales and
losing capacity in our steel system.''
The U.S. steel industry is one of the biggest beneficiaries
of antidumping laws, so lawmakers from steel states don't
want to see those laws weakened. Mr. Zoellick's decision ``is
a stunning betrayal of America's workers,'' said Rep. Peter
Visclosky (D., Ind.) vice chairman of the Congressional Steel
Caucus. ``Putting our trade laws on the table flies in the
face of fair trade and totally disregards the expressed will
of Congress that our trade laws not be negotiated away.''
Before going to Qatar, Mr. Zoellick said he was fed up with
Democrats' demands for more concessions on fast track. He
pointed to his decision to allow a big steel trade case to go
forward, which could temporarily shutter the U.S. market to
some foreign steel. He said his fast-track proposal also
addressed labor and environmental concerns of Democrats. ``At
some point, people are going to have to decide if they can
take yes for an answer,'' Mr. Zoellick said.
Some moderate Democrats defended Mr. Zoellick's concessions
on steel and said they still hope to salvage fast track.
``The challenge is making sure everyone understands the
provisions,'' said Rep. Calvin Dooley (D., Calif.).
In Doha, Mr. Zoellick steadfastly protected America's
textile industry. He repeatedly turned down demands from
India and Pakistan that the U.S. import more clothing. That
decision was looking almost fortuitous, but it clearly won't
be enough to bring about converts on fast track: Burlington
Industries Inc., Greensboro, N.C., filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection and blamed it on cheap imports.
Burlington Chief Executive George W. Henderson specifically
cited the U.S. government as a culprit, saying it used the
textile industry as a bargaining chip in international
relations.
Mr. BYRD. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________