[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 41 (Monday, April 15, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2639-S2640]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       FAST-TRACK TRADE AUTHORITY

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Daschle, the majority leader, has 
now promised that before the Memorial Day recess, the Senate will be 
considering the administration's request for trade promotion authority; 
that is a euphemism for fast track. Fast-track authority allows an 
administration to negotiate a trade agreement somewhere and bring it 
back to the Congress, and Congress is told: ``You are not able to 
change a decimal point, a period, or a punctuation mark. You must vote 
up or down on an expedited basis on that agreement. No changes, no 
amendments. No opportunity to make any alterations at all.'' That is 
called fast track.
  Well, let me talk just a bit about this fast track. First of all, it 
is a fundamentally undemocratic proposition. We have negotiated most 
agreements that we have had without fast-track authority. We negotiate 
and have negotiated nuclear arms control agreements. There has been no 
fast-track authority for that. Most trade agreements that have been 
negotiated have not had fast-track authority.
  Let me make a couple of comments about trade. First of all, the 
Constitution says--article I, section 8--the Congress shall have the 
power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That is the Congress 
that said that. The Constitution says that the Congress has that power, 
not the President.
  Fast track itself, in three decades, has been used five times: GATT, 
U.S.-Israel, U.S.-Canada, NAFTA, and WTO. Look at what happened with 
respect to the trade agreements. Pre-NAFTA, using that as a good 
agreement, it has been one of the worst trade agreements we have ever 
negotiated. Pre-NAFTA, we had a slight surplus with Mexico and a small 
deficit with Canada. After NAFTA was fully phased in, we have a big 
deficit with Mexico, and getting bigger, and a big deficit with Canada. 
We have people who think this is successful. I have no idea where they 
studied if they think this is a successful trade relationship.
  Let's take a look at what is happening in some of these areas of 
trade. Let me talk, as I have previously, about automobiles and Korea. 
Why do I do this? Only to point out that the appetite for going off to 
negotiate a new trade agreement ought to be replaced by an appetite to 
solve some of the problems that currently exist. But nobody wants to 
solve problems. All they want to do is negotiate a new agreement.
  Now, we have automobile trade with Korea. Let me use that as an 
example. In the last year that was just reported, the Koreans shipped 
us 618,000 automobiles. We were able to ship to Korea 2,800. So for 
every 217 cars coming in from Korea, we were able to send them 1.
  Try sending a Ford Mustang to Korea. The Koreans will put up so many 
non-tariff trade barriers that you would be lucky to sell a single one. 
What we have is one-way trade. Korea ships Hyundais and Daewoos to this 
country by the boatload, and we cannot get American cars into Korea. 
Yet our negotiators seem to move along blissfully happy to talk about 
how we are going to negotiate the next agreement.
  How about saying to Korea on cars: Look, you either open your market 
to American automobiles or you ship your cars to Kinshasa, Zaire. Our 
market is open to you only if your market is open to us. That ought to 
be our message.
  We have a number of problems in our trade with Europe. Here is a 
colorful example. We cannot get American eggs into Europe for the 
retail market. You cannot buy eggs in Europe if they come from the 
United States. Do you want to know why? Because we wash eggs in this 
country, and you cannot sell washed eggs in Europe. The Europeans put 
up a rule that says that eggs can only be sold at the retail level if 
they are not washed, because apparently their producers cannot be 
trusted to wash their eggs properly.
  This is a picture of washed versus unwashed eggs, in case anybody 
wants to see the difference. Maybe our Trade Ambassador can take a look 
at this absurd trade barrier.
  How about selling breakfast cereal in Chile? The Chileans restrict 
the importation of U.S. breakfast cereals that are vitamin-enriched, as 
many of our cereals are. They contend consumers already receive enough 
vitamins in their daily diet and there is a health risk from the 
consumption of too many vitamins. So you cannot sell Total in Chile. 
Just absurd.
  How about this one? Our cattle operations sometimes give growth 
hormones to their cattle. There is no scientific evidence that the 
hormones do any harm, but the Europeans put up a rule that says that 
beef from cattle that got hormones cannot get into the EU. I have been 
to Europe and have read the press over there. They depict American 
cattle as having two heads, suggesting that these growth hormones 
produce grotesque animals like the one pictured here. Our negotiators 
actually tried to do something about this, and took the EU to the WTO. 
The WTO agreed with the United States, and authorized our country to 
retaliate against the WTO.
  So what form of retaliation did our negotiators settle on? We took 
action against the Europeans by restricting the movement of Roquefort 
cheese, goose liver, and truffles to the United States. Now that will 
scare the dickens out of another country, won't it? We are going to 
slap you around on goose liver issues.
  I do not understand this at all. Our country seems totally unwilling 
to stand up for our trade interests.
  Try to sell wheat flour to Europe. We produce a lot of wheat in 
Nebraska and North Dakota. Try to sell wheat flour in Europe. There is 
a 78-percent duty to sell wheat flour in Europe.
  Will Rogers said--I have quoted him many times--that the United 
States of America has never lost a war and never won a conference. He 
surely must have been talking about our trade negotiators. It doesn't 
matter whether it is United States-Canada, United States-Mexico, GATT, 
or NAFTA, this country gets the short end of the stick.
  The reason I am going to oppose fast track is not that I am opposed 
to expanded trade. I believe expanded trade is good for our country and 
good for the world. But I believe trade ought to be fair trade, and I 
believe our country ought to stand up for its economic interests. When 
other countries are engaging in unfair trade, our trade officials have 
a responsibility to stand up and use all available trade remedies on 
behalf of American workers and American businesses, and say that we 
will not put up with unfair trade practices.

  I must say that Mr. Zoellick, our current Trade Representative, has 
recently taken some heat for action against imported steel. The 
Administration also took some heat for its action against unfair 
imports of lumber. In both cases, I thought the actions were 
appropriate. But the Administration has been widely criticized. This 
weekend, George Will had an op-ed that was very critical.
  But I hope that nobody is getting the impression that U.S. producers 
are being adequately defended from unfair imports. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. Take the example of Canadian wheat. The 
Canadians use a monopoly agency called the Canadian Wheat Board to 
subsidize their grain and undersell us all over the world. In February, 
the U.S. Trade Representative ruled that the Canadians had been using 
their monopoly power to undermine the international trading system. But 
to date, the USTR has done nothing about it. Our wheat growers had 
asked for tariff rate quotas to be imposed. USTR found the Canadians 
guilty, but has yet to impose tariff rate quotas. Instead, USTR 
proposes to take the matter to the WTO. By the time the WTO issues a 
ruling, our great grandchildren will still be dealing with the problem.
  I expect a number of my colleagues who will join me in saying to 
those who want to bring fast track to the floor: Fix some of the 
problems that exist in the current trade agreements before you decide 
you want new trade agreements. Fix some of the problems--just a few. 
Fix the problem of grain with Canada. Fix the problem of wheat flour 
with Europe. Fix the problem of automobiles from Korea.
  How about fixing a couple of the problems dealing with Japan? Almost

[[Page S2640]]

fourteen years after our beef agreement with Japan, there is a 38.5-
percent tariff on every pound of beef that still goes into Japan. Japan 
has a $60 billion to $70 billion trade surplus with us, and they are 
still hanging huge tariffs on every pound of American beef we ship to 
Japan. How about more T-bones in Tokyo?
  I am describing a few of a litany of problems in international trade 
that our country refuses to address. Why? Because we have trade 
negotiators all suited up. They have their Armani shoes and their 
wonderfully cut suits, and they are ready to negotiate. They will lose 
in the first half hour at the table if history is any guidance.
  I am saying we ought not grant fast-track authority until our 
negotiators demonstrate they can fix a few trade problems. I did not 
believe Bill Clinton should have fast-track authority when he was 
President, and I do not believe George Bush should have fast-track 
authority. Not until the Administration is willing to demonstrate that 
it is willing to solve a few of the trade problems I have described.
  Fast track is going to be on the slow track in the Senate. There will 
be many amendments proposed. I, for one, will offer a good number of 
amendments dealing with the issues described. I will also offer an 
amendment that says that NAFTA tribunals should not operate in secret. 
We should not be a party to any deal that determines international 
trade outcomes behind closed doors. The public should be able to see 
what NAFTA tribunals are up to.
  This country will have done a service to its citizens if we say no to 
fast track.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.

                          ____________________