[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 35 (Friday, March 22, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2314-S2316]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          FAST TRACK AUTHORITY

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday the majority leader of the 
Senate described the conditions under which he intended to bring to the 
Senate legislation authorizing trade promotion authority. That is a 
euphemism for fast-track authority.
  President Bush has requested of this Congress that we give him fast-
track trade authority. Like Presidents before him, he has asked to be 
allowed to negotiate trade treaties and bring them to Congress for 
expedited consideration, without any amendments, under any 
circumstance, for any purpose.
  I opposed fast-track authority for President Clinton, and I will 
oppose it for President Bush. I do not believe Congress should grant 
fast-track authority. I think it is undemocratic. I do not believe it 
is necessary for us to have fast-track authority in order to negotiate 
trade agreements. We negotiate the most sophisticated agreements 
without fast-track authority. Nuclear arms treaties are negotiated and 
brought to the Congress without fast-track authority. Only trade 
agreements, we are told, must have this handcuff put around Members of 
Congress, so they cannot offer any amendments.
  The reason I care about this is I have watched trade agreement after 
trade agreement be negotiated, often trading away the interests of 
producers in the United States, only to discover the problems that 
arise cannot be solved by these agreements.
  To give an example, the White House negotiated a trade agreement with 
Canada, under fast-track trade authority. I was serving in the House at 
the time. I was a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. The 
trade agreement came back to the House, to the Ways and Means 
Committee, and the vote in committee for that trade agreement was 34 to 
1. I cast the lone vote against the agreement.
  The chairman of the committee came to me and said: Congressman 
Dorgan, we must have a unanimous vote. It is very important. You are 
the only one who is holding out. It is really important you understand 
that Canada is our biggest trading partner, our neighbor to the north. 
The administration has negotiated this with great care. We really want 
to have a unanimous vote. Won't you join us?
  I said: Absolutely not. It does not matter to me if I am the only 
vote. It does not matter to me at all.
  The vote was 34 to 1, and they were sorely disappointed they could 
not get a unanimous vote out of the Ways and Means Committee. I was 
this troublemaker.
  So the trade agreement went into effect, passed the House, passed the 
Senate. No one was able to offer an amendment. I could not offer an 
amendment. After the trade agreement was finished, we began to see an 
avalanche of Canadian grain being sent into our country. That Canadian 
grain came from the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a state trading 
enterprise. The Canadian Wheat Board has a monopoly on wheat, and is 
able to ship to this country deeply subsidized Canadian grain, 
undercutting our farmers, taking money right out of our farmers' 
pockets. Nothing could be done about it because I could not amend the 
trade agreement. Our hands were tied. That is what fast-track trade 
authority is all about.
  Let me talk about trade for a few minutes and why I am going to 
oppose this fast-track resolution when it comes to the Senate. I and 
some others in the Senate--Senator Byrd has described his opposition--
will be trying to slow down the fast track bill, and to ultimately 
defeat it.

  Let me describe why. It is not because we are protectionists. It is 
not because we want to build a wall around our country. Those of us who 
oppose fast track believe in expanded trade. We believe trade is good 
for our country. We believe expanded trade and breaking down barriers 
in foreign markets makes sense for our country. We believe all of that. 
We also believe and insist and demand that trade be fair.
  Let me point out what the Constitution says about trade. The U.S. 
Constitution, article I, section 8, says: The Congress shall have the 
power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several 
States and with Indian tribes.
  It could not be more clear. The Congress shall have the power to 
regulate commerce with foreign nations--not the President, not the 
executive branch, not the judicial branch, but the Congress and only 
the Congress.
  With fast track, Congress relinquishes its responsibility. We will 
let someone else go negotiate a trade treaty, go into a room, shut the 
door, and in private, in secret, negotiate a trade treaty, and then 
bring it back to the Congress. Our hands will be tied behind our backs, 
as we will not be able to offer any amendments. That is what fast-track 
trade authority is all about.
  I will use a chart to describe one piece of trade that I think 
demonstrates the bankruptcy of what has been going on in international 
trade. The example I have in mind involves trade with Korea in 
automobiles. Now, someone watching or listening on C-SPAN or someone in 
this Chamber might well drive a Korean car. If you do, good for you. 
You have every right to drive it. Korean cars are sold all over this 
country. You can go to a dealership, and buy a car from Korea, from 
Japan, from Europe. That is consumer choice. I would never be critical 
of that.
  But the fact that there are lots of Korean cars coming to our country 
does not mean that there is free trade. You have to look at both sides 
of the equation. Last year the country of Korea sent to the United 
States 569,000 Korean automobiles. How many cars made in the United 
States are sold in Korea? Only 1,700. I repeat, we purchased in the 
United States 570,000 Korean cars and the Koreans purchased 1,700 from 
us.

  Let me also describe how this happens. Korea does not want American 
cars in Korea. Under the World Trade Organization, tariff barriers to 
sending American cars to Korea have come down. Why would we not get 
more cars into Korea? In January, an English-language Korean newspaper 
published an article describing the trade barriers faced by imported 
cars in the Korean marketplace. It is based on a report put out by a 
Korean state-run think tank, the Korea Institute for International 
Economic Policy. The report cites a widespread climate of fear and 
intimidation associated with imported cars, including threats of 
physical harm. Now, this is a report by a Korean think tank, saying 
that Koreans face threats of physical harm, lengthy safety test 
procedures, and discrimination by the traffic police.
  An especially flagrant example of unfair trade that caught my 
attention: Korean importers have been frustrated in their inability to 
showcase foreign cars at the Seoul Motor Show, the biggest car show in 
Korea. In May of 2000, the distributors put on their own import motor 
show. As the import show began to attract interest and some orders for 
foreign cars, the Korean Ministry of Finance announced the selling of 
any cars with engine displaced at

[[Page S2315]]

greater than 3,000 cc--which is effectively any imported car--would 
have to be reported to it. This had an immediate chilling effect on 
prospective buyers; a lot of car orders were canceled due to fears of 
tax audits and the like.
  In January of this year, the deputy U.S. trade representative, Jon 
Huntsman, stated that ``Korea had somehow become a dynamic exporter 
without becoming an equally dynamic importer, dampening the competition 
companies need to keep their edge in the global marketplace.''
  This is an example of an intolerable trade situation.
  Let me give you another example, about Brazilian sugar. There is a 
tariff on sugar, but none on molasses. So what happens? Brazilian sugar 
is sent into the United States through Canada disguised as molasses. It 
is shipped from Brazil to Canada, loaded on as liquid molasses, and 
becomes stuffed molasses. It comes from Canada to the United States. 
The sugar is unloaded from the stuffed molasses. The molasses go back 
to Canada, and the whole process is repeated. This is fundamentally 
unfair trade. It goes on all the time, right under our noses. And 
nothing is being done about it--nothing. No one is willing to lift a 
little finger to resolve these problems. All they want to do is go to 
the next trade issue.
  Over $100 million in U.S. beef per year cannot get into Europe. Now, 
I have here a picture of what a typical U.S. cow, or heifer might look 
like. It happens to be a Hereford. That is what I raised when I was a 
kid. Now, our cattle are sometimes fed hormones, and to hear the 
Europeans describe it, our cattle have two heads. Absurd, of course. We 
buy a lot from Europe every single year, but we cannot get beef into 
Europe.
  There is so much more. Every pound of beef we send into Japan at the 
moment, 12 years after we had a beef agreement with Japan, has a 38\1/
2\ percent tariff. Each pound of beef has a 38\1/2\ percent tariff 
attached when we send it to Japan. That is after we had a beef 
agreement. We had all the negotiators over there who reached a big deal 
with Japan. It was front-page headlines across the country: Beef 
agreement with Japan. Good for us. The agreement provided there will be 
a 50 percent tariff on all United States beef going to Japan, which 
will reduce over time, but snap back as the quantity increases. We have 
gotten more beef into Japan, yes, but 12 years after the agreement, we 
still have a 38\1/2\ percent tariff on each pound of beef going into 
Japan.

  We ought to expect to get more T-bones into Tokyo. That is my cry: T-
bones to Tokyo; pork chops to China. Get rid of stuffed molasses to 
China. How about cars to Korea?
  How about asking those who are supposed to represent our country to 
stop worrying about the next agreement and fix a few of the problems we 
have created for American workers and American businesses? I am 
perfectly willing to ask Americans to compete anywhere under any 
circumstances as long as the competition is fair.
  I said in the Chamber before, it is not fair competition when someone 
puts a 12-year-old in a factory, 7,000 miles from here, works them 12 
hours a day, pays them 12 cents an hour, keeps the doors locked, and 
ships the product to a store shelf in Pittsburgh, Fargo, or Denver. 
That might be good for the consumer in terms of low prices, but it is 
not fair trade and it is not fair to America's producers.
  We had a hearing one day in which we were told about how some people 
who make carpets in central Asia and the Middle East. They put the 
young kids, 8-, 10-, 12-year-old kids, in the factories, and they use 
needles to work with the carpets. They put gunpowder on the tips of 
their fingers and lit the gunpowder to burn them, so that the tips of 
their finger became deeply scarred from the burns. That way, when the 
kids were making carpets and they would stick their fingers with the 
needles, they could not feel it and it would not hurt--no downtime. And 
then the carpets end up on a store shelf someplace in the United 
States. Fair trade? I don't think so. Abusing children is not fair 
trade just because a product is getting manufactured at lower costs. 
Abusing children is just plain abusing children.
  We ought not have on any store shelf in any place in this country the 
product of slave labor wages. We should not be letting in women's 
blouses made in a factory in Honduras where the doors are locked and 
people are paid slave wages--we ought not have that on the store 
shelves of this country. That is not good for consumers. It is not good 
for anybody.
  This country needs to be a leader in demanding fair trade. We do not 
do that. We want to pass fast track so we can do another trade 
agreement, and essentially keep a blind eye for what is going on in the 
old agreements and move on to the next one.
  I got involved with this issue because of wheat farmers in North 
Dakota. After the United States-Canada free trade agreement, I watched 
all that Canadian grain being dumped into our country, money taken from 
the pockets of our farmers and ranchers. They are furious about it, as 
well they should be.
  On March 6, the U.S. trade ambassador stood up for the American steel 
industry. He said: We will slap tariffs on those who are unloading 
massive amounts of steel in this country and ruining our steel 
industry. We will give our steel producers a chance to compete on a 
more level playing field. Now, the tariffs are not what they should 
have been. There were too many loopholes. But at least it is a step in 
the right direction, and I commend the trade ambassador for doing that.
  But the fact is, we also just had a guilty verdict against Canada on 
wheat trade, yet no tariffs have been imposed. Make no mistake about 
the finding of unfair trade. Here is what the USTR found:

       USTR concluded that for several years, the Canadian Wheat 
     Board has taken sales from U.S. farmers because it is immune 
     from commercial risk, benefits from special privileges and 
     has competitive advantages due to its monopoly control over a 
     guaranteed wheat supply. This infringes on the integrity of 
     the competitive trading system.

  That is how our trade ambassador has described the ongoing problem. 
So is our government taking prompt action, as it did for the steel 
industry? No. USTR has decided not to impose a tariff rate quota, as 
requested by our wheat farmers, because of fears that such an action 
``would violate our NAFTA and WTO commitments.''
  So in effect, USTR has concluded that Canada is guilty of unfair 
trade, but it is not going to do anything about it anytime soon. 
Granted, USTR is talking about taking the Canadians to the WTO. My 
great-great-grandchildren might get some result out of the WTO. There 
is no guarantee it will be a good result. I guarantee only that the way 
the World Trade Organization works, the proceedings will not be 
transparent, because panels deliberate cases behind closed doors, in 
secret. This country ought to demand open government and demand that 
World Trade Organization proceedings be open for all to see.
  When we have the fast track, so-called trade promotion authority bill 
on the floor of the Senate, there will be a number of amendments. I 
intend to offer an amendment saying that the proceedings of trade 
tribunals must be open to the public. The American people have a right 
to see what is going on. And they may not like what they see.
  Also, I will have an amendment proposing tariff rate quotas on 
Canadian wheat. I am going to raise some of the trade problems I have 
discussed today, and I think the Senate ought to have a chance to vote 
on this.
  Advocates of free trade sometimes remind me of the Hare Krishnas, who 
chant the same thing over and over. Our trade negotiators are always 
singing the same song: free trade this, free trade that. I am tired of 
the chanting. The question is, Is someone going to stand up on the 
floor of the Senate and demand fair trade on behalf of America's 
workers and America's producers? Do we demand fair trade or don't we?
  In this town there are only two recognized views of trade. You are 
either a protectionist xenophobic stooge who just doesn't get it and 
can't see over the horizon and can't see the big picture, or you are 
for global trade, expanded trade, opportunity, and jobs for the future. 
That is the way the issue is presented. You are either kind of a nut 
who wants to build walls around America and bring Smoot-Hawley back, or 
you have a broad vision and you are a great statesman and good for you.

[[Page S2316]]

  That is the most thoughtless bunch of nonsense I ever heard. That is 
not an adequate description of the views of trade we ought to embrace. 
There ought not be anyone who is worried about standing up on the floor 
of the Senate and saying: Look, I stand up for this country's 
interests. I stand up for the interests of people who work in this 
country, who produce textiles, who work on the manufacturing floor, and 
who produce automobiles, who work in the fields and produce grain or 
livestock. We stand up for them.
  Our government is not ensuring a level playing field. We have stacked 
the deck with bad international trade agreements, ineffective trade 
negotiators and bad agreements, one after the other. Now we are told, 
let's implement fast-track authority again so we can have a new 
agreement. I say to those who demand fast-track authority, please fix a 
few of the old problems and then come back and we will talk about new 
agreements. Fix some of the old problems first.

  Will Rogers once said that the United States has never lost a war and 
never won a conference. He must surely have been thinking of our 
negotiators. I have suggested many times that our negotiators wear 
jerseys, like they do in the Olympics. Next time they sit around a 
table with China, Japan, Europe, Canada, and Mexico, they could look 
down at their jersey and be reminded that they represent the United 
States. They represent workers, businesses, investors, and others who 
have decided that, in a global economy, they want a fair shake. Nothing 
more more, just a fair shake.
  I am flat sick and tired of seeing negotiators go abroad and 
negotiate a trade agreement that ties America's hands behind its back.
  The first 25 years after the Second World War our trade was all 
foreign policy. We were bigger, better, stronger than anybody in the 
world, and we could outperform anyone with one hand tied behind our 
back. So what we did is we granted trade concessions all around the 
world because it was foreign policy to be helpful to foreign 
governments. That was the first 25 years after the Second World War.
  The second 25 years have been different because we suddenly had 
tough, shrewd international competitors. Too much of our trade policy 
has been soft-headed foreign policy. And it is not working.
  We have a large, growing trade deficit, the largest in human 
history--a large deficit with China, a large deficit with Japan, a 
large deficit with Europe, a large and growing deficit with Canada and 
Mexico. This is not working.
  We used to have a small trade surplus with Mexico and then we had a 
new trade agreement with Mexico and turned it into a big deficit. We 
had a moderate deficit with Canada. We got a new trade agreement with 
Canada and doubled the deficit. Of course, with China and Japan, it has 
been a miserable failure. Our trade relationship with them has failed 
to really break down the barriers and open up their markets.
  So my message is not that I want us to put walls around our country. 
I don't believe in that. My message is not that we should create 
special protections for American producers. I don't believe in that. I 
believe in fair, free, and open competition. My message is, I demand, 
on behalf of the workers and producers of this country, that trade 
agreements represent fair trade conditions. If the rules are fair, if 
the conditions are fair, then we ought to be able to compete. I know we 
will compete and do well anywhere in the world under those 
circumstances.
  This issue is an issue, at its roots, that has to do with jobs and 
economic opportunity and growth. When we give commencement speeches at 
high schools and colleges, we look out onto that sea of faces of young 
men and women, the best and brightest in our country, and we see people 
who are entering the workforce. The question is, What kind of an 
economy will they join?
  We have people around this country bragging about their states being 
low-wage states. That is nothing to brag about. We need good jobs, good 
careers, good salaries, and good opportunities for the future. 
Manufacturing jobs have always been a base of good jobs that pay well 
and have good benefits, but our manufacturing industry is rapidly being 
decimated by trade agreements that are unfair to American workers and 
American businesses.
  So I simply wanted to say today that we are going to have a vigorous 
and significant debate on this issue. It is long overdue. I welcome the 
opportunity to have trade promotion authority on the floor. Those who 
bring it should understand it will not be easy to get it. Those of us 
who have amendments to offer will be here offering many amendments.

                          ____________________