[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 14, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4297-S4308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXPANSION ACT--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 3009, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3009) to extend the Andean Trade Preference 
     Act, to grant additional trade benefits under that Act, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Baucus/Grassley amendment No. 3401, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Baucus amendment No. 3405 (to amendment No. 3401), to 
     clarify the principal negotiating objectives of the United 
     States with respect to foreign investment.


                           Amendment No. 3405

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 10 
minutes debate in relation to the pending Baucus amendment. Who yields 
time?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, is there a time allotted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 10 minutes debate in relation to 
the pending Baucus amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It is my understanding that the Senator from 
Massachusetts will have 5 minutes and the other 5 minutes will be 
allotted to Senator Grassley and myself. I will take 2\1/2\ minutes of 
that.
  I rise once again to urge my colleagues to support the amendment that 
I laid down yesterday on behalf on myself and Senators Grassley and 
Wyden.

[[Page S4298]]

  The amendment is a short but very important clarification to the 
trade bill's negotiating objective on investment. when we negotiate 
investment agreements, our primary objective is to ensure that U.S. 
investors abroad have rights and protections comparable to the rights 
and protections they enjoy in the United States. In fulfilling that 
objective, we generally undertake reciprocal obligations with respect 
to foreign investors.
  Our amendment makes absolutely clear that the rights we extend to 
foreign investors must not exceed the rights we afford our own 
citizens.
  I expect that this is not the end of our debate on investor-state 
dispute settlement. As the debate goes forward, it is important to 
understand that we are trying to achieve a balance. In taking steps to 
protect U.S. investors abroad, we must not sacrifice the sovereignty of 
Federal, State, and local governments here at home. Striking the right 
balance is precisely what we have done in the trade bill. When it was 
brought to our attention that we might improve that balance, we did so 
in the amendment laid down yesterday.
  In the days ahead, it is important that we not upend the balance. We 
have carefully crafted a foundation for future investment agreements. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support that foundation and to support 
the Baucus-Grassley-Wyden amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I appreciate enormously the efforts of 
the chairman and ranking member to move what is always a very difficult 
issue through the Senate. They have done a good job of trying to 
resolve a great many issues. I don't oppose this amendment of theirs, 
but, in fact, I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  I emphasize to my colleagues that this amendment does not fix the 
chapter 11 problem that still exists with respect to the sovereignty of 
American businesses and the rights of Americans and of our communities 
to be able to be protected. I am very grateful for the chairman's 
willingness to try to respond, but substantial disagreements still 
exist with respect to how we best protect American businesses and our 
communities, according to our rights.
  As our colleagues know, it is clear that the NAFTA investor-State 
dispute resolution process, which is known as chapter 11, is going to 
be the model on which future agreements are predicated. And chapter 11, 
in its current form, is a flawed model. It is not a failed model; it is 
simply flawed. We have the ability to be able to fix it.
  Last night, Senator Baucus referenced letters written by several 
organizations that urged correction of the no-lesser-rights language, 
which is precisely what will happen in this particular amendment. I 
appreciate his response, but let me point out that in those letters he 
referenced, there are a whole set of other issues that are unaddressed 
in this amendment. Specifically, from the National League of Cities, 
they say: We are concerned that future trade negotiations, particularly 
for a hemispheric free trade area of the Americas, could include 
provisions that expand the definition of a regulatory taking. As 
evidenced by disputes under chapter 11 of NAFTA, vague expropriation 
language has allowed new avenues of recourse for foreign investors to 
challenge current State and local ordinances.
  So we are allowing a foreign investor to come in and actually undo 
the intent of our local and State communities to enforce certain kinds 
of health or other kinds of restraints.
  From the National Association of Towns and Townships:

       In particular, we are troubled that a claim by a foreign 
     company that a local government's regulation or zoning laws 
     constitutes a taking against the company will make it 
     impossible for the locality to enforce that law or 
     regulation.

  From the National Conference of State Legislators:
       The bill does not adequately and explicitly guarantee that 
     trade agreements negotiated under this authority will respect 
     State sovereignty, nor incorporate well defined and 
     constitutional Fifth Amendment takings principles.

  Regrettably, the Baucus-Grassley amendment does not, despite what 
they claim in the no-greater-rights-than language, address the 
shortcomings of the chapter 11 model. Adopting their language without 
other needed changes is still going to allow future chapter 11-like 
tribunals to rule against legitimate U.S. public health and safety laws 
using a standard of expropriation that goes well beyond the clear 
standard that the Supreme Court has established in all of its 
expropriation cases.
  The amendment before us does not give assurances that the due process 
claims of the Constitution will be respected, nor does it provide safe 
harbor for legitimate U.S. public health and safety laws.
  I will propose an amendment, and we will debate this amendment over 
the course of the next couple of days. I urge my colleagues to adopt a 
policy that will fully protect the constitutional rights of American 
businesses and the constitutional right of our States, the 
expropriation laws and standards of the Supreme Court. I urge them to 
vote for this amendment recognizing this does not complete the task.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the amendment that is before us was 
introduced by Senator Baucus and myself and is designed to make it 
crystal clear that in pursuing these objectives, foreign investors are 
not to be granted any greater rights in the United States than our own 
U.S. investors have rights within the United States. This provision 
builds upon the already strong improvements to the investment 
objectives within this bill. These provisions strike a very careful 
balance between the needs to protect U.S. citizens from arbitrary 
takings of their property overseas and the need to ensure that the 
investor-State dispute settlement process is not abused.
  Critics of the investment provisions insist that the investor-State 
dispute settlement process has somehow run amok. Not true. The fact is 
that no U.S. environmental, health, or safety regulations have ever 
been overturned by the international investment arbitration. Only 13 
investor-State claims have been filed under NAFTA chapter 11 in the 
entire 8 years of its existence. Meanwhile, U.S. investors continue to 
face discriminatory and arbitrary government action in most of the 
developing world. We need to maintain U.S. investors' ability to get 
redress in impartial tribunals while ensuring that the investor-State 
dispute settlement process continues to protect our own investors 
overseas. This simply is what the Baucus-Grassley amendment does.
  I urge support for this amendment and support for the Baucus-Grassley 
compromise.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 109 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici

[[Page S4299]]


     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Miller
       
  The amendment (No. 3405) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3408

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. DAYTON. I call up amendment No. 3408.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton], for himself and 
     Mr. Craig, proposes an amendment numbered 3408 to amendment 
     No. 3401.
  Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To limit the application of trade authorities procedures)

       At the end of section 2103(b), add the following:
       (4) Limitations on trade authorities procedures.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the provisions of section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (trade authorities procedures) shall not apply to any 
     provision in an implementing bill being considered by the 
     Senate that modifies or amends, or requires a modification 
     of, or an amendment to, any law of the United States that 
     provides safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices to 
     United States businesses or workers, including--
       (i) imposition of countervailing and antidumping duties 
     (title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; 19 U.S.C. 1671 et 
     seq.);
       (ii) protection from unfair methods of competition and 
     unfair acts in the importation of articles (section 337 of 
     the Tariff Act of 1930; 19 U.S.C. 1337);
       (iii) relief from injury caused by import competition 
     (title II of the Trade Act of 1974; 19 U.S.C. 2251 et seq.);
       (iv) relief from unfair trade practices (title III of the 
     Trade Act of 1974; 19 U.S.C. 2411 et seq.); or
       (v) national security import restrictions (section 232 of 
     the Trade Expansion Act of 1962; 19 U.S.C. 1862).
       (B) Point of order in senate.--
       (i) In general.--When the Senate is considering an 
     implementing bill, upon a point of order being made by any 
     Senator against any part of the implementing bill that 
     contains material in violation of subparagraph (A), and the 
     point of order is sustained by the Presiding Officer, the 
     part of the implementing bill against which the point of 
     order is sustained shall be stricken from the bill.
       (ii) Waivers and appeals.--

       (I) Waivers.--Before the Presiding Officer rules on a point 
     of order described in clause (i), any Senator may move to 
     waive the point of order and the motion to waive shall not be 
     subject to amendment. A point of order described in clause 
     (i) is waived only by the affirmative vote of a majority of 
     the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn.
       (II) Appeals.--After the Presiding Officer rules on a point 
     of order under this subparagraph, any Senator may appeal the 
     ruling of the Presiding Officer on the point of order as it 
     applies to some or all of the provisions on which the 
     Presiding Officer ruled. A ruling of the Presiding Officer on 
     a point of order described in clause (i) is sustained unless 
     a majority of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and 
     sworn, vote not to sustain the ruling.
       (III) Debate.--Debate on a motion to waive under subclause 
     (I) or on an appeal of the ruling of the Presiding Officer 
     under subclause (II) shall be limited to 1 hour. The time 
     shall be equally divided between, and controlled by, the 
     majority leader and the minority leader, or their designees.

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                Amendment No. 3409 To Amendment No. 3408

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk as a 
second-degree amendment, for Senator Baucus and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3409 to amendment No. 3408.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To make preserving the ability of the United States to 
    enforce rigorously its trade laws a principal trade negotiating 
                   objective, and for other purposes)

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
     amendment, insert the following:
       (4) Additional principal trade negotiating objective.--
       (A) In general.--Section 2102(b) of this Act is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(15) Trade remedy laws.--The principal negotiating 
     objectives of the United States with respect to trade remedy 
     laws are--
       ``(A) to preserve the ability of the United States to 
     enforce rigorously its trade laws, including the antidumping, 
     countervailing duty, and safeguard laws, and avoid agreements 
     that lessen the effectiveness of domestic and international 
     disciplines on unfair trade, especially dumping and 
     subsidies, or that lessen the effectiveness of domestic and 
     international safeguard provisions, in order to ensure that 
     United States workers, agricultural producers, and firms can 
     compete fully on fair terms and enjoy the benefits of 
     reciprocal trade concessions; and
       ``(B) to address and remedy market distortions that lead to 
     dumping and subsidization, including overcapacity, 
     cartelization, and market-access barriers.''.
       (B) Conforming amendments.--
       (i) Section 2102(c) of this Act is amended--

       (I) by striking paragraph (9);
       (II) by redesignating paragraphs (10) through (12) as 
     paragraphs (9) through (11), respectively; and
       (III) in the matter following paragraph (11) (as so 
     redesignated), by striking ``(11)'' and inserting ``(10)''.

       (ii) Subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) of section 2104(d)(3) 
     of this Act are each amended by striking ``2102(c)(9)'' and 
     inserting ``2102(b)(15)''.
       (iii) Section 2105(a)(2)(B)(ii)(VI) of this Act is amended 
     by striking ``2102(c)(9)'' and inserting ``2102(b)(15)''.
       (C) Presidential report to cover additional trade remedy 
     laws.--Section 2104(d)(3) (A) and (B)(i) of this Act are each 
     amended by inserting after ``title VII of the Tariff Act of 
     1930'' the following: ``, section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
     1930, title III of the Trade Act of 1974, section 232 of the 
     Trade Expansion Act of 1962,''.
       (D) Expansion of congressional oversight group.--
       (i) Membership from the house.--Section 2107(a)(2) of this 
     Act is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) Up to 3 additional Members of the House of 
     Representatives (not more than 2 of whom are members of the 
     same political party) as the Chairman and Ranking Member of 
     the Committee on Ways and Means may select.''.
       (ii) Membership from the senate.--Section 2107(a)(3) of 
     this Act is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) Up to 3 additional Members of the Senate (not more 
     than 2 of whom are members of the same political party) as 
     the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Finance 
     may select.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have sent a second-degree amendment to 
the desk in place of the Dayton amendment. I am going to debate that in 
just a little while, but I want everybody to know the situation.
  Also, Senator Baucus and I are going to visit with various people to 
see if there is a smooth way of handling both the substitute as well as 
the original amendment. We may not be successful, but that is our 
desire. We are going to be talking while this debate is ongoing, and I 
will be back to give the specifics of my amendment in just a short 
period of time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, the amendment Senator Craig and I have 
introduced is one that I think has great importance to this 
legislation. It is one I am very proud to sponsor with the senior 
Senator from Idaho, someone with whom I have had the good fortune to 
work on this and other matters relating to trade as they affect our two 
States.

[[Page S4300]]

  I also am very pleased that this amendment is cosponsored by 26 of 
our colleagues, 13 Republicans and 13 Democrats. They reflect a broad 
spectrum of views on many issues, yet they agree on the need for this 
amendment. Is it because all of us are against trade, as our detractors 
have charged?
  The answer is an emphatic ``no.'' We support this amendment because 
we recognize that there is more than one side to the U.S. trade 
equation. There are a great many citizens in our States who have 
benefited from the liberalization of international trade during the 
last 20 years. However, there are also a great many Americans who have 
been harmed by the results of recent trade agreements.
  The proponents of more free trade acknowledge only the winners. Their 
reports cite only the businesses, the jobs, and the revenues from 
increased exports. Those benefits are substantial; however, they form 
only one side of the trade ledger. On the other side are thousands of 
bankrupt businesses and farms in the United States, many thousands of 
lost American jobs, and the massive shifting of U.S. production to 
other countries.
  This Dayton-Craig amendment is on behalf of Americans who have been, 
are being, or will be harmed by continuing trade liberalization. They 
are hardworking citizens who nevertheless will lose their livelihoods, 
which in turn will cause lost homes, lost health insurance, lost 
pensions, lost retirement security, lost hope, and even lost lives. 
They are not isolated occurrences. They are growing in number across 
America.
  They are victims of trade policies and trade practices which are out 
of balance. In the year 2000, the United States total trade deficit for 
goods and services was $376 billion. In goods alone, the deficit was 
$452 billion. In 1990, the total U.S. trade deficit was $81 billion. In 
1980, it was only $19 billion. Our country's trade deficit, that 
imbalance between the value of our exports and the value of our 
imports, was 4\1/2\ times greater in 2000 than in 1990, and 20 times 
greater in 2000 than in 1980.
  A March 18, 2002, Business Week article began:

       How much longer can the United States rack up giant current 
     account trade deficits?

  The article cited a Goldman Sachs Global Economic's Research report, 
which called the current trend ``unsustainable.''

  Another recent report stated:

       America's ballooning trade deficit may be the worst 
     economic problem we face--and no one wants to talk about it.

  What is driving these soaring trade deficits? It isn't that U.S. 
exports are not expanding. In many sectors they are growing at a very 
strong rate, and the last administration worked hard to open foreign 
markets to U.S. goods and services, as did its predecessors. It's the 
explosion in imports which is far exceeding export gains.
  From 1990 to 2000, total U.S. exports in goods and services almost 
doubled to just over $1 trillion. However, during that decade, total 
U.S. imports more than doubled--in fact, increased by 133 percent, to 
almost $1\1/2\ trillion. The increase in imports was $295 billion more 
than the growth in exports.
  If you look at key sectors in our economy, you see this pattern. 
Exports expand. Imports explode. Trade deficits multiply. This serious 
imbalance has cost the jobs, farms, businesses, and livelihoods of too 
many Americans.
  Even in agriculture, the growth in imports has exceeded the growth in 
exports. Farmers and national commodity organizations, including many 
coming right out of Minnesota, have been among the biggest supporters 
of trade liberalization in their hopes that increased exports would 
lead to higher prices and decent profits in the marketplace. From 1990 
to 2000, total U.S. agriculture exports did grow by $10.5 billion, a 
26-percent increase. However, agriculture imports increased by over $16 
billion during that time. Today, the U.S. balance of trade in all 
agriculture commodities is still positive; however, that margin is 
shrinking.
  Two major causes of our huge trade deficits have been Mexico and 
Canada. They are the big NAFTA winners. Look at what has happened to 
U.S. trade with our neighbors since NAFTA took effect on January 1, 
1994.
  In 1993, the last year before NAFTA, all United States exports to 
Mexico totaled $41.6 billion. Imports from Mexico totaled $39.9 
billion, leaving the United States with a $1.7 billion trade surplus 
with Mexico.
  During the next 7 years, United States exports into Mexico grew to 
$111 billion, a 167-percent in crease in 7 years. However, Mexican 
imports into the United States exploded to $136 billion, a 240-percent 
increase, and the United States balance of trade with Mexico went from 
its 1993 surplus to a $25 billion deficit in the year 2000.
  Our trade with Canada followed a similar pattern. United States 
exports into Canada increased by $69 billion from 1993 to 2000. 
However, our imports from Canada grew by $120 billion, almost double 
the growth in exports. In 2000, our trade deficit with Canada was $52 
billion.

  Looking at one key sector, automobiles, the total automobile imports 
from Mexico into the United States more than tripled from 1993 to 2000, 
to almost 1 million per year. Cars imported from Canada into the United 
States increased by 56 percent during that time to 2.2 million 
automobiles. Those 3 million autos used to be--or could have been--
manufactured in the United States by American auto workers.
  Agriculture is another big loser under NAFTA, as too many Minnesota 
farmers have painfully realized. Canadian wheat, Mexican sugar, milk 
protein concentrate, stuffed molasses via Canada, and other trade 
imbalances have caused domestic commodity prices to plummet. The 
average price of a bushel of corn in the United States in the year 
2000, was $1.85, well below the price of $3.11 for a bushel of corn in 
1980, 20 years previously. For a bushel of wheat, the price in 2000 was 
$2.65 per bushel; in 1980 it was $3.91. For soybeans, a bushel in 2000 
averaged $4.75; in 1980, that price was $7.57. Milk averaged $12.40 per 
cwt. in 2000, compared to $13.05 per cwt. in 1980. Turkeys brought 40.7 
cents per pound in 2000; 41.3 cents per pound in 1980.
  All of those prices are in current dollars. After adjusting for 
inflation, their drops are even more severe. Last year, the U.S. farm 
price index, the value of all U.S. agriculture products divided by the 
cost of producing them, dropped to its lowest level since the Great 
Depression. That index has fallen by 20 percent during the last 10 
years. So much for the benefits of NAFTA and international trade 
liberalization on American agriculture.
  Similarly, in the nonfarm private sector, the average hourly wage 
paid U.S. workers in real dollars was less in the year 2000 than in 
1990. It was less in 2000 than it was in 1980, and less than it was in 
1970. Only by more spouses working more hours have average American 
families stayed even or moved slightly ahead in the U.S. economy during 
the last 10, 20, and 30 years.
  Thus, U.S. trade policies and practices, in balance, are doing many 
Americans more harm than good. And the harm is increasing more than the 
good.
  The response of free trade proponents to this predicament is more 
free trade. More opening our doors to the largest marketplace in the 
world, the U.S. economy, which still produces 23 percent of the world's 
GWP, accounts for 12 percent of world exports, and 18 percent of world 
imports.
  Who, then, does benefit from this U.S. trade policy? Primarily, it 
has been, and continues to be, the enormous cost advantages afforded 
U.S. corporations who shift production out of the United States into 
low-wage low-cost countries. Deregulation of the world's product and 
financial markets has enriched a world class of investors, 
entrepreneurs, and professionals. At the very top, the accumulation of 
wealth has been extraordinary.
  In 1996, the United Nations reported that the assets of the world's 
350 billionaires--that is, 350 individuals in this world who are 
billionaires--exceeded the combined incomes of 45 percent of the 
world's population, almost 3 billion people.
  Let me say that again. The assets of the wealthiest 350 people in the 
world exceeded the total assets of over 3 billion of our world's 
citizens. But the larger promise made by the proponents of this 
unregulated world marketplace--particularly to the people of the United 
States--was that living standards for the rest of Americans would also 
rise. That promise has not been realized. As trade and financial 
markets have been flung open, incomes have

[[Page S4301]]

risen not faster, but more slowly. Income equality among nations has 
not improved, and within nations, including the United States, income 
inequality has worsened.

  But this seems not to matter to the promoters of this rapid 
deregulation of the global economy, the so-called neo-liberals, and 
their solution to whatever problems afflict us is, of course, more 
trade liberalization. Ironically, many of them spent the last 30 years 
associating the word ``liberal'' with social failure. In this instance, 
they may prove themselves correct.
  Nevertheless, it is the considered judgment of this administration 
and of the House of Representatives, albeit by a single vote, to 
continue in that direction. I expect this body will join with them by 
passing this trade promotion authority legislation.
  Thus, the Dayton-Craig amendment represents one of the last 
opportunities for Congress to assert its priority for the economic 
well-being of the American people over the capital-serving efficiencies 
of liberalized world markets. This amendment preserves Congress' 
ability to look out for the best interests of all Americans, especially 
the people who are on the losing side of the trade equation. And if we 
don't look out for them, it is a near certainty that no one else will.
  The Dayton-Craig amendment applies only to so-called trade remedy 
laws. They were enacted and put into law by previous Congresses and 
Presidents to protect American business owners, workers, and farmers 
from illegal or unfair trade practices, and to assist those Americans 
whose lives and livelihoods were irrevocably damaged by them. These 
trade remedy laws include safeguards in section 201, which provide for 
temporary duties, quotas, or other restrictions on imports that are 
traded fairly but which threaten serious injury to a domestic industry. 
They include anti-dumping remedies for the destructive effects of 
imports sold on the U.S. market at unfairly low prices, and 
countervailing duty relief from the negative impact of imports 
receiving foreign government subsidies. They also include section 301 
of the Trade Act which authorizes the United States Trade 
Representative to investigate trade agreement violations and illegal 
foreign trade barriers which are harmful to U.S. businesses and 
exports, and to remedy those violations.
  All of these remedies are already subject to the rules established 
under the World Trade Organization and under the North American Free 
Trade Agreement. The United States and other WTO members must adhere to 
the Uruguay Round Stipulations on subsidies and countervailing 
measures. This is hugely important. This is the first time the United 
States has ever agreed to subjugate its sovereignty to an international 
organization. The folks who decried the Trilateral Commission and so-
called one-world government, those who condemn the coordination of U.S. 
military forces with NATO, and those who oppose any U.S. adherence to 
international agreements, are strangely silent about U.S. subjugation 
to the economic dictates of the World Trade Organization. Heretofore, 
the WTO, has operated largely as the creation of the United States that 
it is. However, now that it is fully established and empowered with the 
unanimous consent of the participating countries and whose rules can 
only be altered by the same, any sovereign powers negotiated away in 
future trade agreements that are agreed to by this body will not be 
redeemable, which is all the more reason why Congress should be 
vigilant over them.
  The Dayton-Craig amendment says that Congress, along with the 
President, enacted these trade remedy laws, and only the President and 
Congress may eliminate them. They cannot be negotiated away by an 
unelected trade negotiator, albeit one selected by the President, who 
has a much narrower perspective than Congress, who has the specific 
objective to secure further trade agreements, and who may not share 
this body's perspective and concerns. Since a letter from 62 Senators 
opposing the inclusion of trade remedy laws in future trade 
negotiations was ignored, there is no reason to expect otherwise when 
those negotiations finally occur.
  So, when a new trade agreement comes to Congress, to the Senate, with 
the trade remedy laws of the United States altered, with their 
protections weakened, and with Congress' prior enactment of them 
overridden, then, if this trade promotion authority law is in effect--
as it is written now without the Craig-Dayton amendment--we will be 
faced with a take it or leave it proposition. We will have no 
discretion or latitude. It will be all or nothing.
  This amendment will permit--not require, but permit--Congress to 
separate those provisions in a proposed new trade agreement which alter 
existing trade remedy laws, allow the rest of the agreement to proceed 
along fast track, and then consider those trade remedy changes under 
regular Senate rules and procedures. Then, Congress can decide, as 
only Congress should decide, whether they must be given up for some 
larger gain. Then, we, or our successors, will be able to look our 
constituents in their eyes and tell them that we have acted in their 
collective best interests.

  Trade negotiators look at those trade remedy laws and they see words, 
or bargaining chips, or perhaps even nuisances to get rid of. We see 
people, our constituents, who elected us and who depend upon us to look 
out for their interests. So when words which protect them are going to 
be removed, those decisions should be reviewed by their elected 
Representatives.
  Last week, the trade ambassador said that you cannot be for this 
amendment and be for trade. There is great irony in an unelected 
official in the executive branch, which has no constitutional authority 
over trade, telling 535 elected Members of Congress, to whom the 
Constitution assigns the full responsibility for foreign trade, 
essentially to butt out of his domain. He was quoted as saying:

       This goes to the heart, of whether the Congress is going to 
     try to negotiate with 435 Members of the House and 100 
     Senators, whether they want to go over to Brussels and all 
     sit around together, or whether they are going to have the 
     Executive Branch negotiate.

  My reply, Mr. Ambassador, is: You negotiate and then Congress will 
exercise its responsibilities under the United States Constitution. If 
our trading partners question those procedures, show them a copy of our 
Constitution. We bring government officials from all over the world 
here to learn about our system of government. This is another teaching 
opportunity. Under our Constitution, we do not permit one person--no 
matter who he or she is--to bargain away our laws. No one--not even the 
President of the United States--has that authority. And no one who 
understands our Constitution should seek that authority.
  While our country's future trade policies are debatable, the right of 
Congress to participate actively in setting those policies is not. For 
anyone to try to usurp that authority is seriously misguided. If it 
succeeds, Congress has failed, failed its responsibility, failed the 
Constitution, and failed the people of America.
  By adopting this amendment, the Senate upholds that right and that 
responsibility.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the Dayton-Craig 
amendment, I wish to speak for a few moments about the constructs of 
the amendment itself and applaud my colleague and partner in this 
amendment, the Senator from Minnesota, for a very thorough and well-
thought-out explanation as to the reason for this amendment.
  I need not repeat the statistics. I need not repeat the facts that 
have been so eloquently spoken about a problem that exists in our 
country today that begs for a remedy and, at the same time, demands 
that we move forward in the area of expanding trade amongst our trading 
partners around the world.
  The elements of fairness, the elements of transparency, the elements 
of the right hand knowing what the left hand is doing are absolutely 
critical in any trade relationship.
  By the character of a developing economy, by the uniqueness of a 
resource-directed economy, by the uniqueness of a populated economy, 
all of our countries around the world have differences. And those 
differences have values. And those countries that sense those values 
work to protect them or

[[Page S4302]]

in some way assure that they will not be traded down or effectively 
destroyed by the very governments that are destined to protect them.
  As a result of that, from the very beginning, and from the beginning 
of the debate over trade, very substantively coming with the Kennedy 
Round of trade years ago, when we first established the fast-track 
concept, we knew our trade negotiators, once they were at the table of 
international negotiations, would have to have flexibility to propose 
and bring back to the Congress a whole package. But that whole package 
had to be representative of the laws of the country of which they were 
diplomats.
  We have struggled with that over the years. Congress has consistently 
passed fast tracks, and we have worked to move progressively and to 
liberalize our trade laws. We, the United States, have been the world's 
promoters of trade. It is quite simple why we would want to be that.
  In my State of Idaho, nearly a third of every acre planted of 
agricultural produce has to sell in world markets to maintain some 
degree of value in a domestic market.
  My State was built on potatoes, potato chips. Now it is being built 
on computer chips. And those products have to sell in world markets. 
Clearly, the DRAMs that are produced by Micron, a large portion of 
those move into international markets to be applied to new technologies 
being developed in those markets that then again sell in the world 
market.
  Clearly, in my State, trade has expanded dramatically in the last 
several decades. But while the hi-tech economy has grown very well with 
a substantial amount of profitability, the agricultural economy has 
floundered. And while trade has been extremely beneficial in some 
areas, I would have to argue, as the Senator from Minnesota has, that 
in other areas it appears to have been less than fair and, in many 
instances, not fair at all.
  There is a bit of a classic struggle going on between the United 
States and Canada in our forest products industries, forest products 
industries that are in part supply, publicly owned in the sense that 
the timber comes from public lands. Whether it is the Federal lands of 
the U.S. Forest Service in the lower 48 and Alaska or whether it is 
crowned and provincial timber in Canada, the reality of placing values 
on those rough products as they move to the market is substantially 
different.
  Over the years we have fought mightily to create balance. But as a 
result of some of what we believed to be unfair practices between 
Canada and the United States, we have seen the rights of our policies 
go out and our men and women walk away with empty lunch pails while 
Canadians were aggressively logging and dumping in our markets. Just 
this year our President had to use trade remedy laws to stop the very 
process I have just defined. He stood up and he spoke out and he placed 
a tariff against Canadian lumber until such time as they can come back 
to the table and balance out with us a relationship and an agreement 
that does not put our men and women out of work and still allows them 
to work and still allows the beneficial reality of Canadian and U.S. 
sticks, 2 by 4s, being at the local lumberyard to build the homes of 
Americans.
  That is called balanced trade. That is called fair trade. The 201 
process that brought about the investigation by our government, which 
was open and transparent, and that led our President to move is known 
as a trade remedy law passed by the U.S. Congress, passed by a majority 
vote out of this body--in other words, reflective of the constitutional 
responsibility of every Senator and every U.S. Member of Congress 
representing their States but, most importantly, taking an oath right 
there in that well to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
  The argument is simple and the argument has been made already today 
by the administration in a letter to all of our colleagues that fast 
track is simply a process and we make all of these proposals and we 
make all of these changes and all of them come back for a vote in this 
Chamber and they are correct--one vote, up or down.
  The problem occurs with the anticipation of the positives that will 
happen in an overall trade package once negotiated because they are 
never quite negotiated in a vacuum. The process goes on for years and 
years, as you have round after round and finally they conclude; there 
is a lot of attention and the world finally says, Oh, here it is, here 
is a trade package, a product of WTO, a product of aggressive 
negotiations, probably a product of the new round launched last year in 
Doha. The anticipation is so great and the public pressure is so great 
that when it gets to the well of the Senate and we see that substantive 
law has been changed and we would like to fix it, we cannot. We can 
vote against it, but the pressure by business, by industry, by the 
economy in general is you must pass this trade package. And we do. And 
we have consistently.
  As a result, some of us have had to vote no. I voted no against 
NAFTA. Why? Because of some environmental provisions in it and because 
of loopholes that I felt were in it, that an 18-wheeler truckload with 
Canadian grain could get through and into our markets were a reality, 
and they were and I voted against it, and time has proven that to be 
the case.

  But it has also proven one other thing--that Canadians are very good 
at enforcing laws at the border and we are very bad. But that was then. 
This is now. This administration is acting differently, and it is 
acting responsibly, and it led with the steel decision and it has now 
followed with the softwood lumber decision, and it is saying that it 
will effectively use a very transparent process to review the fairness 
or the lack of fairness in trade relationships and where it finds 
dumping it will move. And it has. I credit them for that.
  But what I am also saying, what the Senator from Minnesota is saying 
is that within the process itself, we can avoid some of the problems 
that have now been recorded over the last several decades if we would 
be allowed, on laws that we are proposing to be changed that might 
reduce the ability of the executive branch of our Government to enforce 
trade remedy laws, to say that they would apply to a point of order and 
a simple majority vote, the same vote it takes to pass the trade 
package that would be in the Chamber that they would be a part of. So I 
would say to any negotiator, if you are negotiating a package that 
cannot get 51 votes in this Chamber, and you are proposing changes in 
substantive law that might be required to get 51 votes, wherein lies 
the problem, especially if we are defending what I believe to be the 
very thing that the Senator from Minnesota has talked about--our 
constitutional responsibility and the sovereignty in doing that.
  Every administration and this administration protects with a 
vengeance its executive prerogatives, its executive authority, and we 
have seen this administration step up to that on at least two occasions 
in the last couple of years. That is what we are doing today--stepping 
up to what is, in fact, a legislative prerogative of the Constitution 
and why we think it is right that it be allowed to be a part of this 
package requiring a simple majority vote.
  What am I saying? The Dayton-Craig amendment is simply a point of 
order that would be part of it. That is, if a package comes to the 
floor and there are changes in trade remedy law--and in the current 
package that we are alleging we will know if they are there without 
even having to look because 90 days prior, under the law proposed, the 
negotiators would have to announce proposals of changes in the law. 
That is part of what came out of the House. That is part of what the 
Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley agreed on. And 
that is appropriate. It is appropriate that the legislative bodies of 
this constitutional Republic understand that changes in the laws that 
they have written are being proposed. What we are saying today is that 
there ought to be the next step and that next step is quite simple--to 
allow a simple majority vote of the constitutional officers of this 
body--us, U.S. Senators--to say whether those changes are right.
  Now, here is the next step, though: but to do so without dragging the 
whole trade package down. Not all trade packages are changes in our 
laws. They are expansions of authority. They are access to other 
markets. They are adjustments in other laws--ours and

[[Page S4303]]

theirs, our trading partners. And so we are saying you do not bring 
down the whole package; there is good in trade and we know that. But 
what we are saying is that there is an authority and a responsibility 
that we should not abrogate or that we should not cast in such a way as 
to never be able to get there because the value of the whole appears to 
be so much greater and so important at that moment in time than the 
long-term constitutional responsibility of these Senators.

  So the Senators from Minnesota and Idaho, pass go, because the whole 
is so much more important than the parts. We are here today to tell you 
that the parts are darned important. They are constitutionally 
important.
  And now let me try to set another stage for you about the pressures 
involved.
  Our trade remedy process, countervailing duty, antidumping, 201 is 
transparent. It is a public process. If you, Mr. President, are a 
manufacturer in your State and you feel you are being dramatically 
harmed by a product coming in under a trade agreement, you have a 
course of action. Now, it takes a couple of years. It is open, it is 
public, and it will cost you money because you will have to get the 
attorneys and you will have to make the argument. If it is dramatic 
dumping and dramatic competition, you might be out of business before 
you get a remedy, but the remedy is still there and it is still open 
and it is still public. What we have tried to do and what our 
negotiators have tried to do since the Kennedy round forward is to 
convince other countries of the world to make their processes more 
transparent.
  Now, over time, there has been a shift. The shift has been away from 
their duties and away from their penalties toward antidumping 
provisions, not unlike ours. They are not transparent. Sometimes they 
are cast or administered in the dark of night. And so what our trading 
partners are telling our trade negotiators, or at least our trade 
negotiators believe, is that we have to get rid of what we have to 
cause them to get rid of what they are getting or they have got as it 
relates to trade remedy laws. In other words, we walk the plank first 
and maybe they will follow. In the meantime, what happens to the 
manufacturers and the workers? What happens to the economies of Idaho 
and Minnesota? Do they have to shift to the new paradigm? Do the old 
economies have to go away even though under a different day and a 
different scenario they were viable and productive? Well, I guess I am 
frustrated by it all.
  Let me talk about what happened in November of 2001 at Doha, Qatar, 
when our trade negotiators were involved in a round that we worked very 
hard to get, that was a product of the fallout of the very tragic round 
that occurred in Seattle, which basically fell apart as a result of 
national and international dissidents and disruption. In Doha this past 
November, our administration agreed to reopen negotiations on 
agreements of implementation of article 5 of the GATT--that is called 
on antidumping and countervailing duties--and on subsidies and 
countervailing pressures. The World Trade Organization had already 
ruled a number of times against our domestic trade remedy laws under 
these agreements and stated: the stated purpose of almost every other 
WTO member in securing these new negotiations is to further weaken U.S. 
trade law; in other words, further weaken the ability of the U.S. 
Government to protect its work force and its producers and its 
industries from what might be dumping, what might be clearly antitrade 
or unfair trade.
  The Japanese Government was elated by that action. They said: We are 
satisfied. This constitutes a major victory for their efforts to gut 
our trade laws. Those are the words of the Japanese economy, trade and 
industry minister. He said: ``We are 120 percent satisfied that that's 
where the Bush administration wants to go.''
  The USTR sacrificed our antidumping and countervailing duty laws in 
order to get a new round of talks at the table--not yet; they simply 
put them on the table.
  Now, here is where I think the Senator from Minnesota and I agree and 
we also agree with our Trade Ambassador. There is nothing wrong with 
putting those issues on the table. When you are sitting at a 
negotiating table, everything ought to be negotiable, if the goal is to 
move from here to here and the benefits that will accrue as a result of 
that proposal are positive for our economies. So, our Trade Ambassador, 
put it on the table.
  But in putting it on the table, it is important that you recognize 
who made those laws and how we ultimately ought to address them. And 
what we are saying is, put them on the table; talk about them. See if 
there is a better way to get where we need to go in 2002 than there was 
in 1960. The world has changed dramatically. We understand that. We are 
willing to listen to it. Put it on the table. The laws we passed in 
1960 may not apply today.
  But in putting it on the table, we are simply saying: And you bring 
back proposed changes in current law, not new law, in current trade 
remedy laws that are subject to a point of order. Why? Because this 
sovereign body created those laws. And the executive branch of 
government does not have a right to change them. And they don't. They 
only propose changes, but they do so in an environment that almost 
always assures that never will that vote occur.
  It is a rather simple approach. We are being told by the 
administration and by some in it that this destroys TPA. It has been 
editorialized that this is a bitter pill. Then the other day it was 
called a torpedo. Today, in what is a well-meaning but not totally 
accurate letter from the administration, they strongly opposed it.
  Let me go through the letter in the context of what I have just 
talked about, about the flexibility of negotiations. Before I do that, 
let me drop back a moment to something I think is important, and it is 
a frustration that our negotiators deal with when they are in the 
business of negotiating.
  I had the opportunity a couple of years ago to be part of an observer 
team at The Hague at a climate change conference. The head of the U.S. 
team of the Clinton administration that was there said at the beginning 
of that conference: We will not propose laws that will damage the 
economy of the United States. And he said: No agreement is better than 
a bad agreement. The conference began and the pressure built.
  During that time I had the opportunity to have a dialog with some of 
our counterparts from different Parliaments around the world. For the 
first time, I began to understand that they don't understand us. They 
didn't realize that a treaty negotiated by an administration and signed 
off on by an administration was not law until the Senate ratified it. 
Why? Well, if you are a member of a parliamentary body and you are 
elected and then you, if you are in the majority party, elect the Prime 
Minister out of that, that Prime Minister and the parliamentary body 
are, in essence, one. If that Prime Minister signs off on a treaty, it 
is law, unless the country doesn't like it. Then you hold a special 
election and get rid of the Prime Minister and the party. You get a new 
party and a new Prime Minister. That is how it works for a lot of 
countries in the world.
  It does not work that way here. Our Founding Fathers created a 
division of labor in our Constitution. I think it was quite a clear 
division. When I began to say: The Kyoto treaty is not law in our 
country, it is a proposed treaty the Senate of the United States has 
refused to consider, therefore, it is not law, therefore, our 
negotiators don't have to negotiate to it or for it, the European 
parliamentarians, didn't understand that, or at least they chose not to 
understand it.
  Of course, I was there as part of an observer team. I spent a lot of 
time encouraging the team not to make bad law, not to craft an 
agreement with which we couldn't live. Ultimately, they could not agree 
with the parliamentarians of Europe, and they came home.

  That is the reality of where we are at the moment. That is why it is 
important to understand the frustrations our trade ambassador has when 
he goes to the table and they say: Why can't you just negotiate 
something? That has been arguable, why we have wanted TPA or fast track 
over the years. It is why we originally gave it.
  But from the 1960s to 2002, the world and the economies of the world 
and the economies of this country and the economies of Idaho and the 
economies of Minnesota have changed dramatically in part because of 
trade, both positive and negative.

[[Page S4304]]

  I believe it is right and proper that we debate this issue today, 
that we don't sweep it under the rug, that we ask our colleagues to 
choose whether we ought to have a point of order and whether we ought 
to have a simple majority vote on the need to change the trade remedy 
laws of our country as proposed by the trade agreement that is on the 
floor at the time or if we should retain the existing law.
  In the letter sent this morning by the administration, they say that 
``first and foremost, the amendment derails TPA without 
justification.'' I disagree with that. The Senator from Minnesota said 
it so well: An appointed bureaucrat is not an elected Senator. The oath 
of office we take to adhere to the Constitution is so clear and so 
simple and so important. We ought to be extremely cautious about 
delegating that constitutional responsibility to an unelected official.
  The trade ambassador would say: You don't do that. You ultimately get 
to vote on it. I think I have talked about the vote, the circumstances 
of the vote, the climate in which the vote is cast. That is why we are 
here today suggesting we make some subtle changes in the law.
  ``We have been committed not just to preserving U.S. trade laws but, 
more importantly, to using them.'' This is the administration talking 
in the letter. You are right; they have. And yet we are saying: we want 
to preserve them if it fits for you to use. They are saying, no, no; 
they can be negotiable or at least we want the right to negotiate.
  We are not denying that right. I have said it once. The Senator from 
Minnesota has said it. We are not denying the right of negotiation at 
all. If we are bright and clear and articulate in what we do, we will 
not sour the debate or the environment in which those negotiations 
occur because if I were a negotiator, I would say: You bet, we will 
talk about it. We will put it on the table. It will require a simple 
majority to pass. But then the whole agreement will.
  In all fairness to the administration, they recognize in the letter 
41 Senators are a minority blocking this process. We offered to the 
administration yesterday that we would make some modification. They did 
not see fit to accept that. We went ahead. The Senator from Minnesota, 
when he offered the amendment this morning, modified it so it is not a 
two-thirds. It is a simple majority on the point of order, exactly the 
same vote it takes to pass the whole package. I believe that is a 
reasonable and right approach and a fair approach toward dealing with 
this issue.
  A minority ought not be allowed to block trade law or any law for 
that matter. We rule by a majority procedurally. We deal with 
supermajorities on occasion, and we have done it here on occasion, and 
with cloture and other issues to protect trade laws.
  Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to respond.
  Mr. DAYTON. The Senator will recall--I would like the Record to show 
I ask the Senator, I received a call from a colleague on a matter this 
morning and indicated a desire to change, modify this amendment and 
make it more acceptable to the administration. I would like to ask if 
that was the Senator's intent, to make this one that would be more 
acceptable to the administration?
  Let me say also parenthetically that, as a member of the other 
political party, I do not intend this amendment in any respect to be 
something that is referenced to this particular administration. I 
respect the role the administration has taken, that the trade 
ambassador has taken with regard to the steel products, as the Senator 
indicated. I thought it was a very strong position the President took 
with regard to the lumber coming from Canada; that, as the Senator 
said, this administration is far more aggressive than its predecessor 
in that regard, and also with regard to Canadian wheat. My concern in 
offering this was not with regard to any particular administration. My 
interest was in protecting this Congress for many administrations to 
come on this matter.
  I ask the Senator, is this attempt on our part one that came out of 
the Senator's negotiations and discussions with the administration?
  Mr. CRAIG. It is that. I thought that was a right and reasonable 
approach. We should not ask for a supermajority on issues that can be 
passed or should be passed by a majority of the body.
  The Senator from Minnesota listened to those arguments, accepted 
those arguments today. I was pleased that his amendment could be 
modified for that purpose.
  In the administration's letter there is another argument. They say:

       Secondly, the amendment would jeopardize our current trade 
     negotiations, especially the new global trade liberalization 
     mandate launched in Doha last November.

  My reaction to that is, it does not.
  They go on to say:

       This is not a hypothetical observation. The failure to 
     launch a global trade negotiation at Seattle in 1999 was due 
     in significant part to a refusal even to discuss trade laws.

  Well, that was then. This is now. I have just said--the Senator from 
Minnesota has just said--discuss trade laws. Put them on the table. 
Look at the fact that they might need adjustment or change, that laws 
we have written in the 1960s might need some change.
  All we are saying is, when the package comes back, it will require, 
if a point of order is brought against a change that you have already 
reported to us, Mr. Ambassador, a 50-percent plus one of those present 
and voting.
  The conversation in Doha or the next round ought to go like this: 
While the Congress of the United States is giving us new expanded trade 
authority and negotiation authority, it also recognized the strong 
desire on the part of the citizens of our country to protect some 
process of trade remedy and trade remedy laws that are currently on the 
books of the United States. So any changes that we would make in them 
or propose to be made--and we are certainly willing to discuss those 
and talk about them, as we also want to talk about you, Spain, or you, 
France, or you, Germany, or somewhere else's trade laws--will be 
subject to the same vote as required for passage of the trade package.
  Instead of going with alarm, the ambassador ought to go with a very 
clear, matter-of-fact statement, and then roll up his sleeves and get 
at the business of negotiating in a way that I hope will help American 
agriculture and a lot of our industries.
  Trade remedy laws are not off limits. Those are the words used in the 
administration's letter today: Not off limits at all; available for 
full discussion, full debate, negotiation and change subject to a 
majority vote of the Senate. I think that is right, that is proper, and 
that is what we ought to be about.
  Their fourth argument was the WTO negotiations launched in Doha will 
not impair our ability to enforce U.S. trade laws. I think our 
explanation stands. If the ambassador brings back a package and in it 
there is substantive law change proposed and the dynamics of the 
package are such that the world and the economy of this country is 
saying pass it, pass it, pass it, there will be no opportunity because 
the law would not require, unless this amendment is adopted, us to make 
those adjustments if collectively the Congress of the United States 
felt the negotiators had gone beyond what we believe to be right and 
proper protection under those laws.
  (Mrs. CARNAHAN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Idaho yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I would like to propound a question to 
my colleague. I believe this is one of the most important amendments we 
will be dealing with on the trade promotion authority legislation. I am 
pleased to be a cosponsor, and I will be pleased to speak in support of 
it at some point.
  I ask the Senator from Idaho, is it the case that much of the angst 
that exists with respect to recent trade agreements--U.S.-Canada, 
NAFTA, and others--is that when we see areas of clear trade problems, 
clear manipulation of the markets, clear abuse of trading practices, we 
cannot ever get much of a remedy?
  We have all these trade agreements, but we cannot get a remedy; we 
cannot get a problem solved. Why? At least one of the reasons, in my 
judgment--and I inquire of the Senator from Idaho if he feels the same 
way--is that we have weakened all these remedies to the point that no 
one wants to use

[[Page S4305]]

them because they believe they are ineffective.
  For example, section 22 is pretty much gone. In many ways, section 
301 is made much weaker by subsequent negotiations. The result is, it 
does not matter whether it is wheat from Canada or high-fructose corn 
syrup from Mexico or a dozen items I could mention. We just cannot get 
anybody to tackle a remedy to say: Yes, this is unfair, and we will 
stand up on behalf of our producers and deal with it. That is why this 
amendment makes so much sense.
  If the Trade Representative negotiates a new trade agreement and that 
agreement further weakens remedies that now exist, my understanding is 
the amendment allows that to come back to the Congress for an up-or-
down vote. I think that is one of the most important provisions that we 
could adopt to this underlying bill.
  I ask the Senator from Idaho, is it the case that the biggest problem 
these days has been we cannot get a remedy for anything in 
international trade?
  Mr. CRAIG. The Senator from North Dakota has explained it very well, 
and that is the essence of this amendment. Again, a simple majority 
vote of this body will do so. Let me complete my comments. I have 
spoken long enough. There are others who wish to speak on this issue.
  I close by speaking to the second-degree amendment the Senator from 
Iowa has just proposed, and I hope at some time we appropriately will 
move to table that second-degree amendment. Let me tell my colleagues 
why.
  There is nothing in that amendment with which I disagree as part of 
process and procedure. You bet we should have talked about proposed 
substitutes and changes removed from, I call it the catchall title to 
the advanced title, to a higher priority as it relates to the direction 
we give our negotiators and ambassadors, the principles of negotiation 
and the objective of those principles.
  The second-degree amendment, though, takes away the point of order. 
It says, here is how you negotiate, but it does not deny the right of 
the Senate to speak. I hope at the appropriate time, early afternoon, 
we will offer a motion to table that amendment. I do believe we need a 
good straight up-or-down vote on the Dayton-Craig amendment. It is an 
important amendment.
  I yield the floor. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, at this time I am not going to address 
either my amendment or the amendment by the Senator from Minnesota and 
the Senator from Idaho. I do wish to speak generically about the issue 
before us, to which the amendment of the Senators from Minnesota and 
Idaho are very central, and to remind my colleagues what trade 
promotion authority is all about.
  First, as all my colleagues know, nothing can be done under the 
Constitution about trade unless the Congress of the United States does 
it, because one of our explicit powers in the Constitution is to 
regulate interstate and foreign commerce. It is our authority, and 
Congress rightfully and according to our oath of office ought to 
protect our constitutional responsibilities, and we ought to perform 
our constitutional responsibilities.
  For the first 150-year history of our country, when all Congress had 
to do in regard to trade was put on tariffs, up or down, and other 
business of that nature, it was very appropriate for Congress to 
initiate and finalize action as far as the regulation of interstate and 
foreign commerce was concerned.
  Since the 1930s, we have been involved in cooperative efforts with 
other countries to reduce tariff and nontariff trade barriers because 
it was seen then and today as mutually beneficial to all nations to do 
so. We have been involved in international agreements and international 
fora to accomplish those goals.
  One can imagine how impossible it would be then in an international 
forum to have 535 Members of Congress, in a meeting of 142 countries, 
negotiating trade agreements, with the Congress of the United States 
speaking for the United States. It is almost impossible for Congress to 
reach an agreement among its Members without, in the process, trying to 
negotiate with 142 other countries. So for the last 25 years, or some 
people would say in different ways since 1935, we have given the 
President permission to negotiate agreements with other countries.
  In a sense, the United States, through this legislation and previous 
legislation, has set up a contract with the President of the United 
States saying we would like to have him negotiate for the Congress of 
the United States, where the constitutional power lies, some agreements 
under strict authority that we would give the President, and with 
Congress having final authority to adopt what was negotiated if we 
agreed to it.
  We are talking about giving the President the power to negotiate for 
us because it is an impossibility for the Congress to enter such a 
forum.
  The basic question to our colleagues as they consider Dayton-Craig 
and other amendments is: Do they want the President of the United 
States to have this authority? This is not blanket authority given to 
the President of the United States. It is very confined to subject 
matter. It is very confined to the President reporting to the Congress 
of the United States on a regular basis what has been done and to get 
our feedback so that the President carries out the intent of Congress 
in the negotiations.
  Finally, the President of the United States has to come to an 
agreement with 142 countries. Remember, that is not done by a majority 
vote of those 142 countries. That is done by consensus. So if the 
President of the United States feels the interests of the United States 
are not adequately protected, all the President has to do is walk away, 
and there is no new WTO agreement.
  Eventually, if the President decides U.S. interests are being 
protected and he agrees to it and the other 142 countries agree to it, 
then it comes to us to make a decision whether or not the interests of 
the United States are adequately protected as the President negotiated 
with us, and it takes a majority vote in the House and Senate for that 
to become law of the land.
  The basic question before the Senate in the Dayton-Craig amendment is 
whether or not they want the President of the United States to be 
credible at the bargaining table. The issue is whether or not the 
President will be credible if, when he reaches an agreement, there is 
opportunity in the Senate to have separate votes on separate parts of 
the agreement so some can be dropped and others might be adopted.
  Do my colleagues think the other 142 countries of the WTO are going 
to negotiate with our country on that basis?
  Do you think there will be a final agreement? No. The Dayton-Craig 
amendment undoes the pattern of this contract between the President of 
the United States and the Congress over the last 25 years.
  So we all have to ask ourselves: Has the United States prospered by 
our international agreements over the last quarter of a century by the 
process that is once again before us to set up a contract with the 
President of the United States to negotiate? I have come to the 
conclusion this process has been good, but I am a Republican. Maybe 
Democrats would question my judgment of whether or not this is a good 
process.
  So I have said before in this debate, and I want to say again, listen 
to what President Clinton said as he correctly bragged about the 
agreements he finalized--that started in previous administrations--
during his first year in office. The North American Free Trade 
Agreement and the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement of Tariffs and 
Trades were finalized during his first months in office.
  He says as a result of those agreements, and I suppose he would say, 
too, predecessors to those agreements, that the United States has 
benefited very well by it. And he used, as I heard him say so many 
times, that there were, I think the figure was, 22 million jobs created 
during his administration, and one-third of those jobs were related to 
trade.
  If President Clinton says that, if President Bush believes this is a 
good process to continue, and you have one Democratic President and one 
Republican President who think proceeding down the road that we have 
gone for the last 25 years is the right road to go, I think it would 
carry some weight with people on both sides of the aisle and it would 
be a no-brainer that this

[[Page S4306]]

process ought to be continued. Our colleagues are suggesting that would 
put a kink in this machine, and that might not be the thing to do. I 
raise those questions with my colleagues.
  I also raise the questions with my colleagues of whether or not the 
present trade remedies are working, which I heard a few minutes ago. 
Well, what do they think the steel agreement is all about? The 
President is looking out for our basic industry, to give it some help 
through transition. The President looked at that and decided that other 
countries dumping steel in the United States was not right, and our 
economy was being hurt by it. He stepped in, in a very strong way, to 
protect our interests.
  I think of the 201 process where the previous President stepped in, 
in the case of lamb coming into the United States from New Zealand and 
Australia. I suppose there are a lot of others I ought to refer to, but 
our Presidents, Republican and Democrat, have been willing to use the 
tools that are on the table. Other nations are beginning to learn from 
the United States and are willing to take action to protect their 
industries in a way that is going to eventually hurt us.
  We have been the pioneers of trade remedy legislation for a long 
period of time, and other nations have somewhat resented our using it, 
and they are beginning to learn from us and use it. Now they are doing 
it in a way that is not as transparent as the United States. They do it 
probably in a way that is less concerned about their using it on the 
world economy than what our Presidents have done in regard to our 
action and the world economy.
  Now, are we going to say we should not be looking out for our 
interests on trade remedy legislation? I think what they are saying is 
we ought to let the rest of the world adopt these measures, even if 
they hurt the United States. Some examples: South Africa imposing 
dumping duties on United States poultry, closing an important $14 
million market; Mexico imposing dumping duties on United States high-
fructose corn syrup, decreasing our exports by half, $30 million; 
Mexico imposing dumping duties on certain United States swine, formerly 
a $450 million market; Mexico imposing dumping duties on certain cuts 
of beef affecting companies' abilities to service and grow this $512 
million market. Just this year, Canada imposed dumping duties on United 
States tomatoes, $115 million. In 1999, Canada imposed dumping duties 
on exports of United States corn, a $36 million market resulting in 
little United States corn exported to Canada for 4 months until a 
provisional duty was removed.

  These are examples of the rest of the world learning from the United 
States. Consequently, don't we in the United States think it would be 
better if our country or our President were at the table negotiating to 
see that these things did not happen? I think those are the issues 
before us.
  I probably have implied very much that Dayton-Craig is a bad 
approach. My point is to simply say I hope my 99 other colleagues will 
look at the practice of the last 25 years, which has been a credible 
approach for the United States to be at the negotiating table, and say: 
Do you really want to change that? Do you want to change the 
credibility of the President of the United States at the negotiating 
table?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, of course the Senator from Iowa is 
correct; the Constitution does provide in article I, section 8, that 
the Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign 
nations--not the President, not the trade ambassador, but the Congress. 
That is in the Constitution of this country.
  The Congress has, over some period of time, decided it would like to 
put handcuffs on itself so these handcuffs would prevent it from being 
involved in any trade negotiation or trade agreement that came back to 
the Congress. If it did not like a provision, if it thought a provision 
was not in accordance with this country's interests, the Congress will 
have said, by fast track or trade promotion authority, no, we are not 
allowed to offer amendments to that trade agreement. Congress has done 
that on previous occasions. I do not support that. I do not believe it 
is appropriate.
  What the Senators from Minnesota and Idaho are saying with respect to 
fast track, or trade promotion authority, which will tie the Congress's 
hands, at least in regard to the issue of providing trade remedies for 
trade abuses that exist, that our businesses and our employees in this 
country have to try to deal with, at least with respect to those trade 
remedies, Congress ought to have a say in that if someone negotiates a 
trade agreement that weakens those trade remedies.
  We have had plenty of examples: Section 22 was largely negotiated 
away; section 301 has been diminished in importance. So we have had 
examples where the trade remedies are not available.
  My colleague from Iowa cited some of the trade abuses that I could 
cite. On high-fructose corn syrup to Mexico he says: Yes, that is a 
problem. Do not blame us. Let us not blame America for trade abuses 
that are imposed by other countries.

  Unfair wheat subsidies or unfair wheat trade flooding into this 
country from Canada, that is a problem. That is not our fault; that is 
Canada's fault. The high-fructose corn syrup, that is Mexico's fault.
  I could go on to give a dozen such examples, but let's not blame our 
country for trade abuses that are committed by other countries. Let's 
make sure businesses in our country and their workers know that when 
another country does that, when it tries to rig the marketplace with a 
trade practice that is abusive, then we have a remedy against it.
  Ralph Waldo Emerson said that common sense is genius dressed in work 
clothes. When we deal with trade issues, I find very little genius 
these days, especially in Washington, DC. Almost all of the debate that 
ought to be thoughtful turns thoughtless in an instant. This morning's 
Washington Post editorial is an example of that, suggesting this 
amendment is going to torpedo this trade promotion authority 
legislation. It will do nothing of the sort. It strengthens it.
  Let me give some examples of what is going on in trade. Canada pushes 
an avalanche of grain into our country, unfairly subsidized, unfairly 
traded in our country by a Canadian wheat board that is a sanctioned 
monopoly in Canada which would be illegal in this country. So our 
farmers are confronted with this massive amount of unfair trade, and it 
takes money right out of the pockets of our family farmers, and nothing 
can be done about it. It has been going on for 10 years. It was given 
the green light, incidentally, in the United States-Canada Free Trade 
Agreement, which I voted against; nonetheless, this has been going on 
relentlessly, and nobody does anything about it.
  We had an investigation by the ITC, and they said: Yes, Canada is 
guilty of unfair trade. There was a 301 action filed by wheat growers 
in my State, and the trade ambassador said: No, despite the fact that 
there is a conclusion that Canada is guilty of unfair trade, we will 
not impose fair trade quotas that United States law would allow because 
it might be inconsistent with NAFTA and the WTO. But Ambassador 
Zoellick says to farmers: Don't lose hope. Under U.S. laws you can 
always consider filing antidumping or countervailing duty cases.

  Let me show my colleagues a Congress Daily Report, November 26, 
2001--November 9 through 14: The WTO ministerial at Doha, Qatar, Trade 
Representative Zoellick agreed that U.S. antidumping laws could be 
discussed as the new round gets underway.
  In other words, in the next round the antidumping laws will be up for 
discussion because many countries don't want us to have antidumping 
laws. They want to dump their products into the American marketplace, 
and if our producers are concerned about that--saying we cannot 
compete, we will have to close our plant, we can't compete against 
products coming from China or Japan or Europe or Canada or Mexico or 
Korea, we can't possibly compete against them because they are dumping 
at below the cost of acquisition, what are we going to do--we are going 
to put this on the table to talk about. Maybe we can get rid of 
countervailing duty or antidumping laws. Maybe the next negotiation in 
a room, behind a closed door, in which we are not present, the American 
people are

[[Page S4307]]

not present, trade negotiators from all around the world will decide 
that the United States will agree to get rid of its antidumping laws. 
Maybe that is what will happen.
  If that happens, I sure want the Congress to be able to vote on that 
separately on behalf of farmers, factory workers, steelworkers. I want 
Congress to have a shot at saying yes or no, and my vote is going to be 
a resounding no.
  One final point, if I might. I have just had a bellyful of people 
saying it is wrong to worry about protecting America's interests. The 
word ``protect'' has become a vulgarism in trade speech, and I find 
that Byzantine.
  Who in this Chamber does not want to stand up and protect our 
country's interests? Who do you not want to protect? Do you not want to 
protect a steel industry that is under siege from unfairly subsidized 
shipments into this country? Do you not want to protect farmers and 
factory workers? Who is it you do not want to protect? Isn't it our job 
to decide that we will protect our industries to the extent of 
demanding fair trade?
  I don't mean, by ``protection,'' saying we are going to put walls 
around our country. I don't mean that at all. I don't believe we should 
do that. I believe we ought to be required and able to compete at any 
time, at any place in the world. That competition does not mean, 
however, that our companies and our workers ought to compete with 12-
year-olds who work 12 hours a day and are paid 12 cents an hour in some 
plant 8,000 miles away, and some company takes the product of that 
plant and moves it to a store shelf in Pittsburgh or Fargo or Los 
Angeles or Pocatello. It is not fair trade and it is not what our 
businesses and workers ought to have to put up with.
  When we talk about protecting our country's economic interests, it is 
not about diminishing trade or putting walls around our country. It is 
about saying we have a right in this country to protect the economic 
interests of businesses and workers who want to play by the rules when 
they confront others in this world who decide they will not play by the 
rules.
  One final point. I have made this point over and over because it is 
so dramatic. I want to mention automobile trade with Korea to 
demonstrate what is happening on a range of things throughout the world 
in a way that hurts our workers and hurts our companies. Last year, 
Korea sent us 630,000 cars, Daewoos, Hyundais, and others. Madam 
President, 630,000 Korean cars came into the U.S. marketplace. Good for 
them.

  Last year, we were only able to sell 2,800 cars in Korea. Let me say 
that again: 630,000 Korean cars coming to the United States, and we 
were only able to get 2,800 U.S. cars sold in Korea. Do you know why? 
Because the Korean Government doesn't want American cars sold in Korea. 
It is very simple. And that is not fair. We ought to say to Korea and 
other countries, if your market is open to American products, then our 
market is open to you. But if we make the American marketplace open to 
your products, then you had better open your marketplace or you find a 
way to sell your cars in Kishasa, Zaire, next year and see how you like 
that marketplace.
  I want to speak a little later, but let me say Senator Dayton and 
Senator Craig have propounded an amendment that is very important. All 
it says is we need to preserve the opportunity to vote if someone 
behind a closed door in some room half a world away is going to 
negotiate away the remedies for unfair trade, our remedies to get after 
and take after the unfair trade that exists.
  That is not antitrade; that is protrade. That is not undercutting the 
bill that is on the floor of the Senate; that in fact will strengthen 
and improve it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the Senator from South Carolina has asked 
to speak.
  Under the previous order, we are to go out in 1 minute. I ask 
unanimous consent the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, be 
recognized for up to 15 minutes, and this will be for debate only. At 
that time, we would go out for the party caucuses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I thank the distinguished leader and 
the two distinguished sponsors of this particular amendment, the 
Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Idaho. There is nothing 
better than a clear-cut, clean-cut little amendment, this particular 
provision. It simply says: Wait a minute, we don't want just an up-or-
down vote on an overall patchwork of all kinds of trade measures, and 
all kinds of articles, and everything else of that kind.
  Somebody might not like what they got on prunes. Somebody might not 
like what they have on textiles and everything else.
  We are not disturbing whatever the negotiations are of our special 
Trade Representative, or the President. They tried to label it as 
either you are for the President or against the President. That is 
baloney.
  What it says is: Wait a minute, before you have to vote up or down to 
just bring a whole trade bill down, let's make certain the basic laws 
are right. Here is how it reads:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law [it] . . . shall 
     not apply to any provisions in an implementing bill being 
     considered by the Senate that modifies or amends, or requires 
     a modification of, or an amendment to, any law of the United 
     States that provides safeguards from unfair foreign trade 
     practices to United States businesses or workers, including--
     imposition of countervailing and antidumping duties . . . 
     national security import restrictions--

  It goes down and lists those things that they are trying to safeguard 
from unfair trade practices.
  Even then, only on a point of order will the majority vote up or 
down. So you do not have to argue the entire trade measure that they 
have spent months and months, sometimes years and years on. You can 
just bring it to a majority vote.
  If I were the President or anybody else were the President, they 
would say please put that in there. We are not trying to superimpose 
this kind of authority over the Congress. Article I, section 8, of the 
Constitution says that the Congress has that responsibility. It is not 
the responsibility of the Special Trade Representative, not the Supreme 
Court, not the President--we have the responsibility. What I am trying 
to do is protect that responsibility. The administration should want me 
protecting the Constitution.
  What really is happening is that people do not understand the fix. 
Let me explain what I call the fix.
  If you go back to the early '90s to the enactment of NAFTA, the North 
American Free Trade Agreement, the trade treaty with Mexico, it was a 
very interesting thing.
  The New York Times published an article, after the vote was cast, 
about the 26 freebies that President Clinton did, to put on the fix in 
order to pass that particular measure. He gave two golf rounds, one in 
California, and another one somewhere in Arkansas for votes; he gave 
two C-17s to another Congressman; he gave a cultural center to 
Congressman Pickle, down in Texas, for a vote.
  At least those freebies, in order to fix the vote, got some people 
some jobs. Look the golf matches at least got somebody a job to cut the 
grass.
  Let's clear the air and understand what is going on right now. Under 
Mr. Bush's plan, we would not be allowed to debate and consider these 
trade measures--except in a limited way. The Senators from Minnesota 
and Idaho, said: Heavens above, let us have at least the national 
security laws, countervailing duties, and antidumping laws--where a 
point of order will give you an up-or-down vote and you do not have to 
vote up or down the entire trade measure.
  There is a very interesting article here--the unmitigated gall of the 
proponents of fast track.
  Let me read it:

       The Bush Administration indicated that the President might 
     veto trade legislation if the Senate adds a provision that 
     would allow Congress to amend foreign trade agreements the 
     President negotiates. This week, the Senate is considering 
     granting Bush fast track trade powers. Under fast track, 
     Congress could approve or reject trade pacts but could not 
     amend them. However, Senators Mark Dayton, Democrat of 
     Minnesota, and Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho, are pushing 
     an amendment that would allow Congress to change trade pacts. 
     They say Congress must have the power to make changes

[[Page S4308]]

     to protect U.S. workers. Commerce Department officials said 
     that would defeat the purpose of fast track and they would 
     recommend that Bush veto the legislation.

  In short, yes, the President does not have the authority under the 
Constitution. The Congress, under article I, section 8, has the 
authority and the responsibility. The President, and his little minion, 
Robert Zoellick, the Trade Representative--he runs around and smiles 
and grins in all of these places, and he can amend anything. He can 
amend the laws. But, oh, they bring and amend the laws with respect to 
our national security, with respect to countervailing duties and 
antidumping provisions. He can amend it. But the Congress can't even 
consider it on an up-or-down vote.
  Can you imagine the polls in such a situation as this. That Grassley 
amendment ought to be tabled immediately and we should not wait for 
2:15. There isn't any question in my mind that this thing has gotten 
totally out of hand. The trade laws are not successes. The 
distinguished Senator from Iowa points out that everything has been 
coming up roses. But the fact is, we have been going out of business. 
Because of NAFTA we lost 53,900 textile jobs alone in the little State 
of South Carolina, 700,000 around the country--not just 20,000 
steelworkers. So we lost all of those jobs. And we are going out of 
business. And the Congress of the United States tells them: Retrain, 
reeducate, high-tech, global competition. The President says you don't 
understand it.
  We understand it. We retrain. I told the story--I will repeat it 
right quickly--of the Oneida mill in Andrews that made the little T-
shirts. At the time of the closing, they had 487 workers there. The 
average age was 47. The next morning they did it the President's way. 
They retrained the employees. They are re-skilled. They are now 487 
skilled computer operators.
  Are you going to hire a 47-year-old computer operator or a 21-year-
old computer operator? You are not taking on the retirement costs, you 
are not taking on the health costs of the 47-year-old. So it is a real 
problem.
  Here we have the responsibility, and this crowd will not even let us 
do our job. The arrogance of this K Street crowd who writes these trade 
measures is unbelievable. And the President of the United States went 
over on the House side, and by one vote he promised--what?--he would do 
a fundraiser. So he has been down to Greenville to show up at a 
fundraiser.
  It is money that talks, that controls here. You do not argue the 
trade measure, whether it is in the best interests of our country or 
not. This thing has gotten totally out of hand. And to come here and 
say whether this President likes it or that President likes it, well, 
this Senator does not like it at all.
  We have many other measures, too. I noticed that Nick Calio, and his 
minion at the White House, said we have to get on, we can get rid of 
this bill this week and we can get it to conference, and everything 
else like that. We have barely been able to get on this particular 
amendment to discuss it. And then they say, well, we will put in a 
little maneuver here. And we will fix that vote. And we will not even 
have it, even when they have changed it from a 60-vote point of order 
down to just a majority vote up or down. They will not even let you 
have a majority up-or-down vote on the security of the United States 
under the responsibilities of the Senate.

  They say that past Presidents like it. Past Presidents don't go back 
down to Arkansas--they move to New York. They don't sell this trade 
bill as being good for farmers in Arkansas, I can tell you that. They 
won't run for election down there. And they won't do it in my State of 
South Carolina, either.
  It is a hearty development to find the distinguished Senator from 
Idaho, and the Senator from North Dakota--they know that agricultural 
business extremely well. They are now joining in because they are 
losing all the agriculture. The 3\1/2\ million farmers that we have in 
America cannot outproduce 700 million farmers in China. That is why we 
have a deficit in the balance of trade with respect to corn.
  They tell me that now China is shipping to Japan and Korea some of 
their wheat so they can continue to appear as if they are taking our 
wheat. But we are going out of business there. And we will not have the 
wonderful export of America's most productive production; namely, 
America's agriculture.
  So I hope we will slow down, stop, look, and listen, and understand 
that all we are trying to do is our job. And our job is to regulate 
foreign commerce. Please let us have a vote up or down. Do not come in 
and say, you cannot even have an up-or-down vote on the antidumping 
substantive law, that you can repeal it. Because once they repeal it in 
Doha, or any other foreign land, we're in trouble. When the trade reps 
meet to discuss agreements they don't go to places like Seattle any 
more, where people can go to and demonstrate and tell about our trade 
experiences here in the United States. No, they pick a place that no 
one ever heard of. You can't find it on the map.
  The next meeting will be down in the Antarctic. I have been down 
there. It is hard to get there. That is where they will have the next 
trade negotiation, where nobody can be heard. And they will get the 
fix, and then they will come back and do exactly what is happening on 
this bill.
  There is a fix. In this particular case it is not golf games and not 
C-17s, it is not cultural centers like it was on NAFTA, but it is 
welfare. It does not employ anybody. It says: Well, we give you a 
little welfare to keep your mouth shut, so you can go back home and run 
for reelection. It is not about trade, not about jobs.
  We have the job of creating jobs. They are exporting them faster than 
we can possibly manage it. And now they are not only exporting their 
manufacturing, they are exporting the executive office to Bermuda.
  So here, in a time of war, when you should hear the word 
``sacrifice,'' they put the President on TV, who says: Don't worry. 
Take a trip. Go to Disney World. Take your family. And what we ought to 
do is cut some more taxes to run the debt up.
  You are going to hear about that because by this time next month we 
will be in desperate circumstances. We have to increase the debt limit, 
but they will not say they will increase the debt limit. They will try 
to say it is the war, as to why we need to borrow money. Oh, no, it is 
not the war. It is the trillions of dollars they have lost. And now 
they want to lose another $4 trillion.

  Larry Lindsey--he doesn't like me referring to him--but he is the one 
who opposed what we had going with President Clinton and Secretary 
Summers to stop all of these offshore locations from avoiding taxes. 
They even had a bill, reported out of the committee over on the House 
side, that did that.
  You would think, by gosh, we would be raising taxes to pay for the 
war, certainly not escaping our civic duty in a time of war. But that 
is the hands that we are dealt. The wonderful Business Roundtable, the 
Conference Board, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce--oh, they will all tell you what is good for 
the country. What they are saying is wrecking the economy. They don't 
want to pay for anything. All they want to do is just help everybody 
buy the different elections.
  I see my time is up. I hope that at 2:15, when they move to table, 
Madam President, that the people will sober up and come to the floor 
and give us a chance on that vote to table the Grassley amendment so we 
can do our job. We don't say one way or the other; we just say, give us 
an up-or-down vote to consider the security, consider the antidumping 
provisions, as the Dayton-Craig amendment calls for.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________