[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 58 (Thursday, May 9, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4132-S4134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    TRADE MUST BE BALANCED AND FAIR

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I am pleased my colleague from Minnesota,

[[Page S4133]]

Senator Dayton, would speak to an amendment he and I have coauthored 
that has gained some concern in a variety of quarters as to the impact 
it might have on a trade promotion authority we might be able to pass 
out of the Senate. I think the Senator from Minnesota has spoken very 
clearly and articulately about the problems he and I and all States 
face--the frustration we have with blending domestic markets and 
international markets.
  I certainly am a strong advocate of trade. I always have been. At the 
same time, I want it to be balanced and I want it to be fair. When 
there are disadvantages--and we have just seen one that this 
administration has spoken to in an area that is of great concern to the 
Senator from Minnesota and myself, and that is in timber, where 
Canadians had a unique advantage and were dumping in our market, and we 
finally spoke up, stepped up, put a duty on, and said back off, let us 
see if we can find an agreement. It is only with the use of the tool of 
trade remedy that we are now able to get the Canadians to blink and to 
think about possibly coming to the table to craft a fair and equitable 
agreement. That is exactly what our amendment would do.
  Some would suggest, at least by rhetoric, it is a very damaging 
amendment to trade promotion authority. What I thought I would do is 
read a letter that 62 Members of the Senate signed and sent to the 
President on May 7 of last year, when in fact our trade representatives 
have been in Doha, Qatar, negotiating new trade agreements and the rest 
of the world said: You have to put your remedies on the table, you have 
to negotiate them down or away or we are not going to deal with you.
  What we are saying is bring it all to the table, talk about it. We 
believe that as the legislative branch of Government that crafts public 
policy, we ought to have a right at some point to be able to speak to 
it, instead of taking it all or take none of it, which is, of course, 
what happens under TPA or fast-track authority.
  Once a trade agreement is negotiated and if the executive branch of 
government in some way has negotiated down or altered trade remedy 
authority, and the package comes to the floor, then the pressure of the 
world is upon the Senate. Take it all or take none of it. Those are the 
only two options. Of course, the pressure is to take all of it because 
it is believed the advantages gained by these trade agreements are so 
powerful to the American economy--and in many instances they are--that 
we cannot deny it. Ultimately they pass, even though the 
administration, Democrat or Republican, may well have negotiated away 
some of our authority and our ability under the law.
  This is what we said to the President May 7:

       We are writing to state our strong opposition to any 
     international trade agreement that would weaken U.S. trade 
     laws, key U.S. trade laws including antidumping law, 
     countervailing duty law. Section 201 and section 301 are 
     critical elements in U.S. trade policy. A wide range of 
     agricultural and industrial sectors have successfully 
     employed these statutes to address trade problems. 
     Unfortunately, experience suggests that many other industries 
     are likely to have occasion to rely upon them in future 
     years. Each of these laws is fully consistent with U.S. 
     obligations under the World Trade Organization and other 
     trade agreements. Moreover, these laws actually promote free 
     trade by countering practices that both distort trade and are 
     condemned by international trading rules. U.S. trade law 
     provides American workers and industries the guarantee that 
     if the United States pursues trade liberalization, it will 
     also protect them against unfair foreign trade practices and 
     allow time for them to address serious import surges. They 
     are part of a political bargain struck with Congress and the 
     American people under which the United States has pursued 
     market opening agreements in the past.

  What does the Craig-Dayton/Dayton-Craig amendment do? It guarantees 
we can speak to that if those kinds of relaxations or changes in the 
laws come back to the Senate. And we can speak to it without dumping 
the entire trade agreement.
  I don't think we want to do that. Ours is to promote an ever-
expanding, freer trading world market. At the same time, we do not want 
to disadvantage our own economy, destroy our own producers' capability, 
damage the workhorses of this country, all in pursuit of the idealism 
or the goal.
  We went on to say:

       Congress has made it clear its position on this matter. In 
     draft fast-track consideration considered in 1997, both the 
     House and Senate have included strong provisions directing 
     trade negotiators not to weaken U.S. trade laws. Congress has 
     restated this position in resolutions, letters, and through 
     other matters. Unfortunately, some of our trading partners, 
     many of which maintain serious unfair trade practices, 
     continue to seek to weaken these laws.

  Why? They want access to the largest, richest consumer market in the 
world. They don't want us to force them to be fair, for them to be 
balanced, and for them to come in in a transparent negotiated 
environment. That is what we are asking. That is what this amendment 
requires.
  We went on to say:

       This may simply be postponing by those who oppose further 
     market opening. But whatever the motive, the United States 
     should no longer use its trade laws as bargaining chips in 
     trade negotiations nor agree to any provision that weakens or 
     undermines U.S. trade laws.
  Now, that is May 7, 2001; 62 Senators signed, Republican and 
Democrat.
  The amendment we bring to the floor, or hope we have the opportunity 
to bring to the floor, is supported equitably. We have 26 cosponsors, 
13 Democrats and 13 Republicans.
  What do we do? We simply create a point of order that says if the 
administration changes trade remedy laws, they, by the current 
proposal, must notice us that they have done so, and in so doing they 
have to come back and fully defend it. If they can convince us, then we 
support it. If they cannot, then a point of order rests against it. 
Why? Because we are the ones who craft public policy. We will not deny 
or walk away from our constitutional right to do so. At the same time, 
we are fully willing to allow our negotiators to engage all of the rest 
of the trading countries of the world to bring any trade agreement with 
any proposed changes in it because ultimately it is our job in the 
Senate under our constitutional form of government to accept or deny 
that by ratification or by voting it down.
  Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DAYTON. There have been certain characterizations made about 
those who are advocates for this amendment. I ask the Senator if he 
believes these characterizations apply to himself: That those who 
support the amendment are against trade of almost any kind, that we are 
against the administration, we want to be obstructionists to the 
administration's trade policies, and that we are xenophobic, against 
the rest of the world. Does the Senator consider himself as fitting in 
any of those categories? I don't consider myself to fit into those 
categories.
  Mr. CRAIG. I don't know how anyone serving the Senate, which is for 
an expanding economy, for greater revenues, for workers and for 
producers--and of course we will tax a little of that--would be against 
trade.
  Clearly, the future of our economy is trading in a world market. I 
have watched my State of Idaho grow from an agrarian economy of 
agriculture, timber and mining, to a very diverse economy today of 
electronics, the high-tech industry, and food processing. Almost half 
of everything an Idaho worker produces has to sell on the world market 
to be profitable, to allow that person his or her job and to continue 
the success of that company. That is also true in Minnesota. It is also 
true everywhere else in the country.
  What the Senator is saying and what I am saying is, in the case of 
Canada and softwood lumber--and they have a distinct advantage and dump 
in our markets, putting our people out of work--we say, wait a minute, 
stop; balance this field out a little bit and create fair trade by that 
kind of balance. That is what our amendment allows--a balancing of the 
process. What is most important that our amendment allows us, as 
policymakers, is a right to have a voice in that process. Not the take-
it-or-leave-it strategy that doesn't work in the end.

  I wanted to vote for NAFTA. I voted against NAFTA. Why? Extraneous 
environmental, extraneous labor agreements that should not have been 
part of a trade agreement. It had no choice. There was no flexibility. 
Take it or leave it.
  Instead of working to create a balanced economic environment that 
would have allowed freer but fair and

[[Page S4134]]

balanced trade across the Mexican and Canadian border, we did not have 
that opening. That is an opening we ought to have.
  What I do not want to deny, and I think the Senator from Minnesota 
agrees, I don't want to deny our negotiators from going to the table 
and being able to negotiate any agreement. They ought to have the full 
freedom and flexibility to put anything and everything on the table and 
to bring anything and everything back to us. In the end, under our 
constitutional form of government, we are the ones who have to make the 
decision. They are the ones who negotiate. That is the kind of balance 
that I think is important.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

                          ____________________