[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 52 (Wednesday, May 1, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3609-S3610]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ORDER OF PROCEDURE

  Mr. REID. Madam President, because of the previous unanimous consent, 
time is almost gone for the Senator. I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator be recognized for another 10 minutes. And I announce, on behalf 
of the majority leader, there will be no votes this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask the Senator from South Carolina, 
isn't it the case that the chart that the Senator shows on durum wheat 
starts showing a collapse--actually, if the chart started back a bit, 
it would start showing a collapse almost immediately following the 
U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. That was a Free Trade Agreement where 
Clayton Yeutter, who was then our trade ambassador--he had a great 
disposition. He smiled all the time. And you always felt like the Sun 
was shining and everything was right, nothing was wrong.
  So Clayton Yeutter went up to negotiate with Canada on our behalf, 
and he came back with the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.
  We didn't learn it until later, but he had just traded away the 
interests of American farmers because what happened to us was an 
avalanche of unfairly subsidized grain that came into our country from 
the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a state monopoly. It would be 
illegal in this country. But in Canada they shoved all this grain into 
our country. And then when we went up to try to find out what the 
prices were so that we could take action against Canada, the Canadian 
Wheat Board said: Go fly a kite. We don't intend to show you any 
information.
  We have done that for years. The result is that our farmers have been 
devastated by this unfair trade. This all comes from Clayton Yeutter's 
negotiations with the Canadians; is that not the case?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is the case. The distinguished Senator from North 
Dakota has followed this in a judicious fashion. He and I have worked 
together, but he has really been the leader to get some sensibility and 
attention to the dilemma. All we ask on the floor of the Senate is a 
chance to do our job. In article I, section 8 of the Constitution, it 
is not the President, not the Supreme Court, but the Congress that 
shall regulate foreign commerce. This is so we can look at these little 
side deals and the things that were negotiated that we didn't know 
about, as the distinguished Senator points out.
  The lawyers on K Street and the White House make the need for fast 
track up. They fix the vote. They don't call it until they have a 60-
vote margin to cut off debate. Here we have been waiting dutifully to 
put up our amendments. And there has been a little difficulty on 
finalizing the leadership amendment, but once it is filed, we are ready 
to go. We have been ready to go.
  Don't blame us for holding this up for however many days. We are not 
trying to hold it up. We are just asking the Senate, please kill this 
so-called fast track. We haven't had it for the past several years. 
There have been some 200 agreements without fast track. That is what 
the Senator from North Dakota is speaking to.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for an additional question.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. There are so many issues we could talk about--beef to 
Japan, automobiles from Korea. Let me talk about this issue of wheat 
from Canada for a moment. It is a fascinating issue. There was a woman 
from North Dakota who married a Canadian and moved up to Canada. She 
came back for Thanksgiving or Christmas to North Dakota. And when she 
was back on the farm, her father said: Take up a couple bags of wheat. 
She was going to mill that back up in Canada and make bread because we 
have great spring wheat for making great hard bread. She took back a 
grocery sack full of wheat. All the way back to the Canadian border she 
met 18-wheel trucks full of Canadian wheat coming south--hundreds and 
hundreds of trucks, millions of bushels, every day, every hour.
  But when she got to the border with two grocery bags full of grain 
she was going to grind in order to make bread, they told her: You can't 
take two grocery sacks full of American wheat into Canada. She had to 
pour it on the ground at the border, despite the fact that all the way 
up she met Canadian 18-wheel trucks hauling Canadian wheat south. She 
couldn't get two grocery bags full through the border near Canada.
  How did we end up with that? A circumstance where they are hauling 
all that grain, coming south from Canada in an unfair way, but you 
can't get two grocery bags full into Canada because of a trade 
agreement negotiated by people who were basically incompetent and 
traded away the interests of American farmers.

  Yet here we are being told: Let's not fix the trade agreements we 
have problems with. Let's give the President the authority to do new 
trade agreements.
  My message is very simple: Fix a few of the problems, just a few, 
start fixing a few. Demonstrate that there is some backbone in this 
country to stand up, to have the nerve and the will to fix some trade 
problems. Then come to us and talk about the next negotiation. But only 
then and not until then. Fix a few problems first.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. As the Senator has pointed out, the blasphemy is that 
the most productive farmer in the world is the American farmer. The 
most productive industrial worker in the world is the American 
industrial worker. What is not producing is us the Congress. Forty 
years ago, we produced poultry in South Carolina. We produced peaches--
in fact, more peaches than the State of Georgia. I landed in Europe. I 
had the same experience. Leave that on the plane and destroy it. You 
are not bringing fresh peaches in here, they told me. You are not 
bringing your poultry in here.
  Rules are rules. This isn't aid. This is trade. Everybody looks out 
for the agricultural strength of their nations. That is what we are 
elected to office to do. But Heaven above, you would think I was a 
Communist or something in here trying to stop fast track. Fast track is 
a dirty, no good political gimmick. Everybody knows that. Yet they 
continue to go on with this thing to get a fix and not take the 
responsibility. And then when they have to explain it: Well, it was 
take it or leave it. I wanted to support the President and everything.
  Of course, we all want to support the President. But that is the 
story. Here it is. We are losing out agriculturally, and the Chinese 
are the ones winning. When you have 1.3 billion people, they can 
produce more than our 280 million. They have 600 or 700 million 
farmers, at least, or more. How many million farmers do we have?
  We have about 3.5 million farmers in the United States of America. 
They are outstanding. I am not belittling them in any sense. But 3.5 
million can't produce what 700 million Chinese farmers produce, and at 
the cost and everything else like that. They don't have

[[Page S3610]]

the environmental rules and regs and everything else of that kind.
  I appreciate the body yielding the floor. My plea is, let's be fair 
to each other. Just don't come here and try to do away with the Jones 
Act now when we are trying to build America. Please don't do away with 
the industrial strength of the United States, pointing a finger: You 
are a protectionist; we are not going to start protectionism.
  That is what built the country--good, strong protectionism.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be given 5 
additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me ask if the Senator will yield for a question. The 
Senator comes to the floor often and talks about Ricardo and the 
doctorate of comparative advantage. I used to teach a little economics 
in college. There is no doctrine of comparative advantage in most of 
these unfair trade circumstances. Most of what has happened with 
respect to advantage is political; that is, the political system of the 
country decides we are going to have a state monopoly which trades in 
your country.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right.
  Mr. DORGAN. So decisions are made to allow 12-year-old kids to work 
in a manufacturing plant for 12 cents an hour. That is unfair. 
Manufacturing plants to operate without safe working places. 
Manufacturers will dump chemicals into the streams and the air and send 
the product to the store shelves in Pittsburgh and Los Angeles and 
Fargo and Charlotte. That is unfair. These are political decisions in 
countries around the world about the conditions of production.
  People listen to the Senator from South Carolina, and some are going 
to say: It is the same old stuff. He just wants to be a protectionist.
  In my judgment, there is nothing wrong with protecting American 
interests and requiring fair trade. If that is what protecting is 
about, sign me up. I want to protect our country's economic interests. 
But I believe the Senator from South Carolina feels as I do. I support 
expanded trade. I believe expanded trade is healthy. I believe we can 
compete anywhere in the world. But I demand fair trade. When trade is 
not fair, this country has a responsibility to stand up for its 
producers. It has failed to do that time and time again. Is that not 
the case?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is the case. The unfairness of it is here in the 
``Foreign Trade Barriers'' book from 10 years ago. I think we spotted 
it with about 260 pages and 10 years hence that we got free trade. We 
are getting rid of the barriers, remember. We are helping out 
agriculture by decimating our industrial strength. I am trying to open 
the eyes of my farmer Senator friends. Instead of 260 pages, this book 
is 453 pages. When I held up this book yesterday, it was very 
interesting. Oh, it just put these fleet a flitter. They gathered 
around and you can tell the fixes they got--we are trading more. Well, 
wait a minute, you are getting more trade agreements? Your debate has 
been all year long that you are losing out on the agreements, that we 
are passing them by. All these countries are getting agreements and we 
are not getting any. Of course, that is not the case.

  Let's look now and see. For example, Korea had 10 pages of 
restrictions here in 1992. In 2002, they have gone to 27 pages. Japan 
has gone from 18 pages of restrictions to 42--they are not lowering 
barriers.
  The European economic community, 32 pages in 1992. They have come 
down to 20 pages. We are doing pretty good there. I hope we can do 
better than with bananas. We don't even produce a banana. These special 
Trade Representatives ought to be embarrassed. India's was 8 pages, and 
it went up to 14. You can see what is happening in these countries--
where we are supposed to be lowering the barriers, we are increasing 
them with trade agreements.
  So, come on, let's stop, look, and listen. Give each Senator a chance 
to stop, look, and listen. Don't give me those fast tracks and whip it 
on through with the special interest lawyers. I tell my textile people, 
the lawyers are working this thing on K street; I have nothing to do 
with it. By the time I get a bite at the apple and a chance to even 
discuss it, they give me limited time, and the vote is already fixed. 
Nobody listens because the vote is already fixed. So why pay attention 
to the thing? Let's move on. We have to get our work done around here. 
So nothing happens. We are supposed to learn and exchange views from 
all parts of the country.
  When I came here 35 years ago, I tell you it was an educational 
experience. We didn't have TV, so if you wanted to find out what was 
going on, you were in the cloakroom. There were always 25 to 30 
Senators in either cloakroom and you could engage in debate, listen to 
the other Senators, their experience, and their constituent needs and 
things of that kind. And then we had a concurrent majority to move 
forward for the good of the country.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for one additional question?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Senator Hollings raised the issue of bananas. I wanted to 
explore that for a moment. Is it not the case that our country had a 
big fight with Europe about bananas?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes. One fellow from Ohio gave a lot of political 
contributions. We didn't have any bananas. Do you know where they grow 
bananas?
  Mr. DORGAN. No. We were fighting with Europe because they would not 
allow bananas into the European economies. I mentioned today that we 
had a dispute with Europe about beef. We went to the WTO and won a case 
against Europe. You know how we penalized Europe? We said: We are 
taking action against your truffles and your goose liver and Roquefort 
cheese.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. They have got no embarrassment, I can tell you that.
  Mr. DORGAN. We were fighting with Europe about bananas and we don't 
produce them. Those bananas were coming from the Caribbean, and Europe 
would not let them in.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. John McCain is right--money controls, campaign finance 
is needed. I can tell you that right now. We haven't gotten it yet. We 
are moving in that direction about soft money, but we have doubled the 
contributions and everything else. That was a compromise Senator McCain 
had to make. Now I have to travel to California, maybe Nevada, and New 
York, and maybe Missouri even to get that kind of money. I cannot find 
that in South Carolina. Even a Republican friend--and I have some 
Republican friends, but they don't want to contribute. If their name 
appeared in the little news squib, and they might say Saturday night 
when they go to the club: Why did you give to that Democrat? Why 
embarrass the family and the wife and everybody else? They just don't 
give. So I travel around the country, and beg from my friends and try 
to stay in office. They have been good to me. Here I am. But I cannot 
get the attention of anybody.
  I used to say I would love to serve in the Senate rather than 
practice law because I not only could make the final arguments, like I 
used to in the courtroom, but I can go in the jury room and vote. But 
the vote means nothing. Now the way this thing is geared up, over the 
past 35 years we don't have a discussion, don't have the deliberateness 
or the consideration.
  I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Nevada yielding. 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. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________