[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.
____________________