[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 68 (Thursday, May 23, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4744-S4760]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXPANSION ACT

  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.
       Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3447 (to amendment No. 3401), 
     to amend the provisions relating to the Congressional 
     Oversight Group.
       Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3448 (to amendment No. 3401), 
     to clarify the procedures for procedural disapproval 
     resolutions.
       Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3449 (to amendment No. 3401), 
     to clarify the procedures for extension disapproval 
     resolutions.
       Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3450 (to amendment No. 3401), 
     to limit the application of trade authorities procedures to a 
     single agreement resulting from DOHA.
       Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3451 (to amendment No. 3401), 
     to address disclosures by publicly traded companies of 
     relationships with certain countries or foreign-owned 
     corporations.
       Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3452 (to amendment No. 3401), 
     to facilitate the opening of energy markets and promote the 
     exportation of clean energy technologies.
       Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3453 (to amendment No. 3401), 
     to require that certification of compliance with section 307 
     of the Tariff Act of 1930 be provided with respect to certain 
     goods imported into the United States.
       Reid (for Durbin) amendment No. 3458 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to establish and implement a steel import notification 
     and monitoring program.
       Reid (for Harkin) amendment No. 3459 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to include the prevention of the worst forms of child 
     labor as one of the principal negotiating objectives of the 
     United States.
       Reid (for Corzine) amendment No. 3461 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to help ensure that trade agreements protect national 
     security, social security, and other significant public 
     services.
       Reid (for Corzine) amendment No. 3462 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to strike the section dealing with border search 
     authority for certain contraband in outbound mail.
       Reid (for Hollings) amendment No. 3463 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to provide for the certification of textile and 
     apparel workers who lose their jobs or who have lost their 
     jobs since the start of 1999 as eligible individuals for 
     purposes of trade adjustment assistance and health insurance 
     benefits, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
     prevent corporate expatriation to avoid United States income 
     tax.
       Reid (for Hollings) amendment No. 3464 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to ensure that ISAC committees are representative of 
     the producing sectors of the United States Economy.
       Reid (for Hollings) amendment No. 3465 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to provide that the

[[Page S4745]]

     benefits provided under any preferential tariff program, 
     excluding the North American Free Trade Agreement, shall 
     not apply to any product of a country that fails to comply 
     within 30 days with a United States Government request for 
     the extradition of an individual for trial in the United 
     States if that individual has been indicted by a Federal 
     grand jury for a crime involving a violation of the 
     Controlled Substances Act.
       Reid (for Landrieu) amendment No. 3470 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to provide trade adjustment assistance benefits to 
     certain maritime workers.
       Reid (for Jeffords) amendment No. 3521 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to authorize appropriations for certain staff of the 
     United States Customs Service.
       Wellstone amendment No. 3467 (to amendment No. 3401), to 
     protect human rights and democracy.
       Reid (for Hollings) amendment No. 3527 (to amendment No. 
     3447), to provide for the certification of textile and 
     apparel workers who lose their jobs or who have lost their 
     jobs since the start of 1999 as eligible individuals for 
     purposes of trade adjustment assistance and health insurance 
     benefits.


                           Amendment No. 3527

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I am indebted to the leadership for, 
last evening, late in the hour, having called up my amendment in the 
second degree, I think, to the Byrd amendment.
  What is the pending question before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. It is his second-
degree amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
  Madam President, I am still smiling because I was coming onto the 
elevator with some books, and the elevator operator said: My Lord, are 
you going to preach?
  I wish I had the talent to preach on this particular score because 
the real problem confronting our country is economic strength. There is 
no question in my mind that fast track is about the worst thing that we 
could possibly adopt. I have yet had the time to really get into a 
debate. I would not preach, but I would be delighted to get into a 
debate with respect to, actually, the need for a competitive trade 
policy, for the rebuilding of our economic strength, and the rebuilding 
of our manufacturing capacity.
  Somehow or other we have lost sight of the greatness of America. We 
think it is the 6th Fleet and the atom bomb. They do not count anymore 
in the halls of international and global relations and foreign 
diplomacy. What counts now is economic strength, that is the real 
battle and war we are in.
  They say: You are going to start a war. We have been in a very 
viable, competitive, reciprocal free trade, competitive free trade of 
which Cordell Hull spoke.
  What comes to mind, I was at a conference up in Chicago some years 
ago with Akio Morita, the chairman of the board of Sony. He was 
speaking about the Third World, the emerging nations. This is some 
years back. He was counseling the Third World countries that they had 
to develop a strong manufacturing sector in order to become a nation-
state. He was talking along, and then he pointed at me, and then he 
said:

       By the way, Senator, the world power that loses its 
     manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power.

  That is what is on my mind this morning. It is not just manufacturing 
but, of course, our financial dilemma. There is no question in my mind 
that we have developed, not a tax-and-spend, but a borrow-and-spend 
society.
  I ask unanimous consent that the debt to the penny be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          THE DEBT TO THE PENNY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current: 5/21/2002............................     $6,019,261,264,823.37
Current Month:
  5/20/2002...................................      6,019,304,226,577.31
  5/17/2002...................................      6,019,432,256,973.92
  5/16/2002...................................      6,019,475,513,420.98
  5/15/2002...................................      6,016,580,911,847.58
  5/14/2002...................................      5,990,414,639,076.97
  5/13/2002...................................      5,989,198,647,537.89
  5/10/2002...................................      5,988,911,662,755.21
  5/09/2002...................................      5,978,218,818,210.58
  5/08/2002...................................      5,973,205,194,045.55
  5/07/2002...................................      5,973,527,635,269.29
  5/06/2002...................................      5,969,691,431,266.78
  5/03/2002...................................      5,966,885,188,391.86
  5/02/2002...................................      5,979,288,646,755.03
  5/01/2002...................................      5,974,320,868,797.23
Prior Months:
  4/30/2002...................................      5,984,677,357,213.86
  3/29/2002...................................      6,006,031,606,265.38
  2/28/2002...................................      6,003,453,016,583.85
  1/31/2002...................................      5,937,228,743,476.27
  12/31/2001..................................      5,943,438,563,436.13
  11/30/2001..................................      5,888,896,887,571.34
  10/31/2001..................................      5,815,983,290,402.24
Prior Fiscal Years:
  9/28/2001...................................      5,807,463,412,200.06
  9/29/2000...................................      5,674,178,209,886.86
  9/30/1999...................................      5,656,270,901,615.43
  9/30/1998...................................      5,526,193,008,897.62
  9/30/1997...................................      5,413,146,011,397.34
  9/30/1996...................................      5,224,810,939,135.73
  9/29/1995...................................      4,973,982,900,709.39
  9/30/1994...................................      4,692,749,910,013.32
  9/30/1993...................................      4,411,488,883,139.38
  9/30/1992...................................      4,064,620,655,521.66
  9/30/1991...................................      3,665,303,351,697.03
  9/28/1990...................................      3,233,313,451,777.25
  9/29/1989...................................      2,857,430,960,187.32
  9/30/1988...................................      2,602,337,712,041.16
  9/30/1987...................................      2,350,276,890,953.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of the Public Debt.


                        THE DEBT TO THE PENNY AND WHO HOLDS IT BEGINNING JANUARY 31, 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Intragovernmental
                                     Debt held by the public          holdings                    Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current: 5/21/2002................     $3,436,649,451,216.50     $2,582,611,813,606.87        $6,019,261,264,823
Current Month:
    5/20/2002.....................      3,438,251,573,271.40      2,581,052,653,305.91         6,019,304,226,577
    5/17/2002.....................      3,439,271,479,603.89      2,580,160,777,370.03         6,019,432,256,973
    5/16/2002.....................      3,442,068,572,294.49      2,577,406,941,126.49         6,019,475,513,420
    5/15/2002.....................      3,439,523,397,954.34      2,577,057,513,893.24         6,016,580,911,847
    5/14/2002.....................      3,416,285,823,486.91      2,574,128,815,590.06         5,990,414,639,076
    5/13/2002.....................      3,415,564,600,264.24      2,573,634,047,273.65         5,989,198,647,537
    5/10/2002.....................      3,415,522,879,129.47      2,573,388,783,625.74         5,988,911,662,755
    5/09/2002.....................      3,403,885,470,082.53      2,574,333,348,128.05         5,978,218,818,210
    5/08/2002.....................      3,397,455,347,494.59      2,575,749,846,550.96         5,973,205,194,045
    5/07/2002.....................      3,396,968,024,725.81      2,576,559,610,543.48         5,973,527,635,269
    5/06/2002.....................      3,396,126,515,846.99      2,573,564,915,419.79         5,969,691,431,266
    5/03/2002.....................      3,395,972,512,085.24      2,570,912,676,306.62         5,966,885,188,391
    5/02/2002.....................      3,395,802,045,107.50      2,583,486,601,647.53         5,979,288,646,755
    5/01/2002.....................      3,400,773,341,390.14      2,573,547,527,407.09         5,974,320,868,797
Prior Months:
    4/30/2002.....................      3,402,336,886,067.70      2,582,340,471,146.16         5,984,677,357,213
    3/29/2002.....................      3,444,137,028,277.33      2,561,894,577,988.05         6,006,031,606,265
    2/28/2002.....................      3,442,243,757,040.41      2,561,209,259,543.44         6,003,453,016,583
    1/31/2002.....................      3,378,924,426,706.66      2,558,304,316,769.61         5,937,228,743,476
    12/31/2001....................      3,394,398,958,213.60      2,549,039,605,222.53         5,943,438,563,436
    11/30/2001....................      3,404,026,838,038.17      2,484,870,049,533.17         5,888,896,887,571
    10/31/2001....................      3,333,039,379,996.92      2,482,943,910,405.32         5,815,983,290,402
Prior Fiscal Years: 9/28/2001.....      3,339,310,176,094.74      2,468,153,236,105.32         5,807,463,412,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         THE DEBT TO THE PENNY AND WHO HOLDS IT THROUGH JANUARY 30, 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Intragovernmental
                                     Debt held by the public          holdings                    Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior Months:
    1/30/2001.....................     $3,369,903,111,703.32     $2,370,388,014,843.13        $5,740,291,126,546
    12/29/2000....................      3,380,398,279,538.38      2,281,817,734,158.99         5,662,216,013,697
    11/30/2000....................      3,417,401,544,006.82      2,292,297,737,420.18         5,709,699,281,427
    10/31/2000....................      3,374,976,727,197.79      2,282,350,804,469.35         5,657,327,531,667
Prior Fiscal Years:
    9/29/2000.....................      3,405,303,490,221.20      2,268,874,719,665.66         5,674,178,209,886
    9/30/1999.....................      3,636,104,594,501.81      2,020,166,307,131.62         5,656,270,901,633
    9/30/1998.....................      3,733,864,472,163.53      1,792,328,536,734.09         5,526,193,008,897
    9/30/1997.....................      3,789,667,546,849.60      1,623,478,464,547.74         5,413,146,011,397
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page S4746]]

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, they have talked about surpluses, 
surpluses, surpluses. You will find in Time magazine this week, up on 
the right-hand side--I don't have my copy--where the deficit for 2001 
was in excess of $500 billion. Let me repeat that. Look in Time 
magazine. We were talking about surpluses when we were cutting taxes 
last year. Time magazine alone reported, rather than a surplus we were 
running these horrendous deficits.
  Of course, the fiscal year has just begun. We have yet to distribute 
a lot of the emergency money. For example, I have been trying like the 
dickens to get the rail security money to start working on the tunnels 
going into New York. The money has been appropriated and voted during 
the emergency, but we are not really serious. We are not really serious 
about the so-called terrorism war. Here we are already running a $212 
billion deficit and the increase to the debt already this fiscal year 
was right at almost $100 billion spent from Social Security trust 
funds. They are talking about how we could get into it, but this record 
that I am introducing is very significant because of what I pointed 
out.
  Let me have printed in the Record an article by Paul Krugman, ``The 
Great Evasion; Where Have All The Taxes Gone?'' I ask unanimous consent 
it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From the NY Times, May 14, 2002]

                           The Great Evasion


                     where have all the taxes gone?

                           (By Paul Krugman)

       Last week Stanley Works, a Connecticut tool company, 
     postponed its plan to evade taxes by incorporating itself in 
     Bermuda. The decision reflected pressure from the White 
     House, which denounced the move as unpatriotic in a time of 
     national emergency.
       I am, of course, making that last part up. The 
     shareholders' vote approving Stanley's move was challenged by 
     Connecticut officials; also, the company has been put in the 
     spotlight by David Cay Johnson, The New York Times's 
     invaluable tax reporter. But the Bush administration, always 
     quick to question the patriotism of anyone who gets in its 
     way, has said nothing at all about Stanley Works, and little 
     about the growing number of U.S. corporations declaring 
     themselves foreign for tax purposes.
       To be fair, the administration didn't create the loophole 
     Stanley wants to exploit. And it's not enough just to 
     denounce corporations that exploit tax loopholes; the real 
     answer is to deny them the opportunity. Still, the 
     administration's silence is peculiar. What's going on?
       The closest we have to an official statement on the issue 
     of companies moving offshore comes from the Treasury 
     Department's chief of tax enforcement: ``We may need to 
     rethink some of our international tax rules that were written 
     30 years ago when our economy was very different and that now 
     may be impeding the ability of U.S. companies to compete 
     internationally.''
       Unfortunately, that statement misrepresents the issue. For 
     one thing, U.S. companies don't necessarily pay higher taxes 
     than their foreign counterparts; Germany's corporate tax rate 
     is significantly higher than ours, France's rate is about the 
     same, and Britian's is only marginally lower. Anyway, the 
     Treasury statement makes it sound as if we're losing revenue 
     because U.S.-based companies are moving their headquarters to 
     lower-cost locations, or because they are losing market share 
     to foreign rivals. Neither proposition is true. In fact, 
     we're losing revenue because profitable U.S. companies are 
     using fancy footwork to avoid paying taxes.
       By incorporating itself in Bermuda, a U.S.-based 
     corporation can--without moving its headquarters or anything 
     else--shelter its overseas profits from taxation. Better yet, 
     the company can then establish ``legal residence'' in a low-
     tax jurisdiction like Barbados, and arrange things so that 
     its U.S. operations are mysteriously unprofitable, while the 
     mail drop in Barbados earns money hand over fist. In other 
     words, this isn't about competition; it's about tax evasion.
       The natural answer would seem to be to crack down on the 
     evaders--to find a way to tax companies on the profits they 
     really earn in the U.S. and prevent them from using creative 
     accounting to make the profits appear somewhere else. It's 
     hard, but not impossible.
       But here's the key point: Administration officials don't 
     want to help collect the corporate profits tax. Unable to 
     push major corporate tax breaks through Congress, the 
     administration has used whatever leeway it has to offer such 
     breaks without legislation. The Hill, a nonpartisan 
     publication covering Congressional affairs, recently reported 
     on ``a series of little-noticed executive 
     orders .  .  . that will provide corporations with billions 
     of dollars in tax relief without the consent of Congress.''
       And now the silence on Stanley becomes comprehensible. The 
     administration doesn't want to say outright that it's in 
     favor of tax evasion; but it also doesn't really want to 
     collect the taxes. Better to say nothing at all.
       The trouble is that hinting, even by silence, that it's 
     O.K. not to pay taxes is a dangerous game, because it can 
     quickly grow into a major revenue loss. Accountants and tax 
     planners have taken the hint; they now believe that it's safe 
     to push the envelope, Tax receipts this year are falling far 
     short of expectations, even taking the recession into 
     account; my bet is that it will turn out that newly 
     aggressive tax avoidance by corporations (and wealthy 
     individuals) is an important part of the story. And it will 
     get worse next year.
       Furthermore, what does it say to the nation when companies 
     that are proud to stay American are punished, while companies 
     that are willing to fly a flag of convenience are rewarded?
       If the administration wants to eliminate the corporate 
     profit tax, let's have a real, open debate--starting with an 
     explanation of how the lost revenue will be replaced in a 
     time of severe budget deficits. Meanwhile, let's crack down 
     on tax evasion.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, you can read there and see where they 
have not only cut $1.6 trillion from the revenues and wonder where the 
deficits come from, but they are insisting at this particular time to 
make permanent certain tax cuts, an additional $4 trillion. Of all 
things, our Commander in Chief, the President, says: And by the way, 
since we have a war on terrorism, we are going to have to run deficits.
  We have paid for every war that we have ever been in. I noted the 
other day, last Saturday:

       Sharon's Finance Ministry has revised the budget to deal 
     with the slump and pay for the military effort, particularly 
     the month-long offensive in the West Bank that ended last 
     week. It includes raising by 1 percentage point the 17 
     percent value-added tax, levying higher taxes on diesel fuel 
     and cigarettes and making cuts in the country's generous 
     social welfare benefits.

  You don't find that back in the United States. Israel is serious 
about its war.
  But no. We continue with the economy. We think it is bouncing back 
because--why? It is not on account of production, and not on account of 
investment in the market today, but on account of ``Argentina, a land 
that shopped itself to death.''
  I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             Argentina, A Land That Shopped Itself To Death

                          (By Matthew Parris)

       I always knew there was something queer about Argentina.
       You do not need to be psychic to pick up a sense that 
     something is wrong with a place. Scores of countries are 
     inhabited by scores of ills, but they muddle through. 
     Argentina felt wrong in a different way. Travelling there was 
     more akin to the experience of visiting a company which, 
     though trading, later turns out to have been a front for 
     quite another operation; or driving down a modern and 
     expensive-looking motorway (as I once did in Cuba) where the 
     sliproads turn out to be dead ends, the bridges across it 
     bridge nothing to nothing, and the crowds of people milling 
     inexplicably round beneath them are found to be desperate 
     hitch-hikers, there being no cars and no petrol.
       It just didn't add up. Nor did Argentina.
       Arriving at the frontier by bus from Bolivia some years ago 
     after a 20-hour journey over atrocious roads from La Paz, we 
     found that from the border post to the nearest town lay a 
     short stretch of tarmac along which the ten-minute taxi ride 
     cost more than the cost of the whole Bolivian bus journey. In 
     the next town, Juyuy, we paid in Argentine pesos and were 
     given change in crudely printed notes issued by the state 
     government, there being an insufficiency of funds from 
     central government in Buenos Aires,
       This seemed like anarchy--some kind of breakdown. So how 
     come, when we reached the next town, Salta, the women were 
     wearing fur and taking toy dogs for walks on leads? I have 
     felt the same ``Huh?'' about Israel, Morocco and Saudi 
     Arabia.
       Like Tintin's little dog, Snowy, one surveys the scene with 
     a question mark suspended above the head. The reasons for 
     puzzlement vary but the sense of disjunction is the same: a 
     circuit board with an unfinished circuit; and Escher print 
     where the perspective disappears up its own staircase; those 
     people Moral Re-Armament who invited you unaccountably to 
     lunch in the 1970s; a telephone kiosk in the desert; Mormons. 
     One observes quizzically yet unable even to frame the 
     question. Years later, when the thing implodes, one says: ``I 
     always knew there was something dodgy there; I should have 
     looked into it; I should have said something.''
       But what? This was at a time when all the wise people said 
     Carlos Menem was doing things right, the peso had linked to 
     the dollar and the entire Spanish banking system was taking a 
     punt with Argentine economic

[[Page S4747]]

     prospects. To talk of the inherent madness would have 
     appeared, in itself, mad.
       Now, at least, there is acceptance that something is wrong. 
     Let me take a stab at saying what. I think the problem with 
     Argentina is shopping.
       There is much too much shopping in Argentina, and it has 
     been going on for a long time. Everybody in Buenos Aires 
     seems to be shopping and when they are not shopping they are 
     at yacht clubs, or with their psychoanalysts.
       Another favourite pastime is visiting cemeteries, at the 
     most fashionable of which I was astonished to encounter 
     something more resembling a city than a place of burial. 
     Family mausoleums vied with each other for marbled splendour. 
     Some were multistoreyed, and some went down a couple of 
     floors beneath ground. One was said to have a lift. Through 
     the streets of this macabre metropolis women in mink walked 
     miniature poodles in tartan coats.
       Where, then, was the money coming from? I saw some 
     breweries, a cement works and a Coca-Cola bottling plant, and 
     there were rumoured to be factories (on strike) in another 
     part of town. There were also a great many waiters, hotels, 
     bars, clubs, and sexily skirted shopgirls selling sickly-
     sweet pastries and treacly cream. There were window-dressers. 
     And, everywhere, there was shopping.
       Well, it's fairly clear--is it not--what was amiss? The 
     country was living way beyond its means. People did know 
     this, on one level at least. They knew what the figures said, 
     and they blamed the Government for not getting the figures 
     right. It was all due, they said, ``to corruption''; no doubt 
     somebody, probably the political class, was salting it away. 
     Government needed to be ``cleaned up'', people said (while 
     boasting about how cleverly they were fiddling their own 
     taxes): but in the meantime much hope was being placed by 
     some, and much disbelief by others, in whatever it was 
     President Menem was doing with the currency.
       Those who supported pegging the peso to the dollar thought 
     this would rescue the Argentine economy; those who did not, 
     thought it would wreck the Argentine economy. On one thing, 
     however, there seemed to be wide agreement; getting the 
     currency right would be the basis for economic revival.
       To another question, however, little attention was 
     directed. Given that currency is really just a medium of 
     exchange, what of the things--the goods and services--to be 
     exchanged? What were Argentinians making? What were they 
     doing when not shopping? How hard were they working? What 
     were they paying themselves for this work? About such 
     questions I heard less discussion and sensed a lack of focus. 
     This was very different from neighboring Chile, a humbler 
     country where the hustle and buzz of economic activity filled 
     the air.
       Currency and corruption because the great evasions of 
     political discussion in Argentina. Currency was something 
     somebody else--a politician--had to get right before the 
     economy would work.
       Corruption was the reason why, even after many fine minds 
     had applied themselves to Currency, the economy was still 
     refusing to work.
       When a political leader has been spat humiliatingly out by 
     the voters we are understandably disinclined to hitch our 
     judgment to his star, but Fernando de la Rua, President for 
     two years since 1999, does seem to me to have been right. And 
     in the end, the bangers of pots and pans got him.
       They will soon be banging their pots and pans outside the 
     house of their latest President, Eduardo Duhalde. Whatever 
     left-wing window-dressing, the 60-year-old Peronist veterans 
     brings to his appointment, the real need and only solution is 
     austerity, massive spending cuts and an end to 
     featherbedding. As a Peronist he will not find it easy to 
     lead this way. Already the pots and pans beat for fresh 
     elections and the eviction of the entire political class.
       Listen to those pots and pans in Argentina. They are a 
     voice, and a powerful one, of democracy. The voice says ``let 
     us have our cake and eat it''. The voice has shouted down 
     government after government in that country.
       Nor do you need to remind me that Argentina has only 
     fitfully enjoyed elected government. It is a great fallacy of 
     post-1945 political science to equate democracy with elected 
     government. Democracy is the crowd,the majority, the mob; the 
     crowd may get its way by electing a government or by 
     sustaining a dictator. Some of history's most notorious 
     populists have been dictators and generals; for most 
     dictators, if they are to survive, must be or became 
     demagogues.
       A dictator--as was Juan Peron--is in some senses more at 
     the mercy of his people than an elected government, for his 
     position is inherently precarious and his tenure, however 
     long, will always have a temporary flavour. Nobody rules for 
     ever without the love of the people, but elected governments 
     can on the whole get away with if for longer. A dictator--an 
     Amin, Mussolini, Mugabe, Hitler, Galtieri--needs to work more 
     assiduously to please the crowd, and has a greater power to 
     carry into effect the will of the people, than a prime 
     minister or elected president. When it suited him, Peron and 
     his trade unions had no difficulty in winning elections.
       But with elections some constitutions, terms of office, 
     courts and rules of law. These, often thought of as 
     characterizing democracy, are impediments to the will of the 
     people, and intended to be. So are the International Monetary 
     Fund, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the 
     Federal Reserve Bank, the World Bank, world trade and 
     ``globalisation''. They are bulwarks against the mob.
       And they, or a fair few of them, will now have to serve as 
     President Duhalde's allies against the Argentine electorate, 
     banging its pots and pans in the face of reality. Lemmings do 
     not always know what is good for them. Lemmings can be 
     democrats, too.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, ``Argentina, a land that shopped 
itself to death.''
  We have gone from the socialistic United Kingdom system of tax and 
spend and to the Argentina system of borrowing, spending and shopping 
to death. There it is.
  It is very interesting. When I talk of the financial dilemma we are 
in with a $400 billion trade deficit and we are going to run a nearly 
$400 billion fiscal deficit--I want to be here on September 30 and see 
where we are measuring up by September 30. We have an election in 
November. By October, we will have the figures. It will be nearly a 
$400 billion deficit. There isn't any question in my mind.
  So you have the fiscal weakness--the enfeeblement, more or less--of 
the economy on the one hand and the productivity on the other hand of 
not making anything anymore.
  I was very interested. That is why I brought this book to the Senate 
this morning. The favorite book in Washington today is Theodore Rex 
about Teddy Roosevelt. You will find the economic strength of the 
country on page 20.

       More than half of the world's cotton, corn, copper and oil 
     flowed from the American cornucopia, and at least one-third 
     of all the world's steel, iron, silver and gold.

  Can you imagine that? Here we just had to put in some restrictions on 
the import of steel. It is not more or less trade. It is more about 
McNamara and the World Bank. He went running around the world with the 
World Bank saying: Wait a minute. In order to become a nation state, 
you have to have the weapon of agriculture and the weapons of war. You 
have to have a 2-percent steel plant.
  I worked with a fellow named Willy Korpf when he brought to South 
Carolina, Beaumont, TX, down in Brazil, Saudi Arabia--he was building 
them in China a few years ago when he crashed in the Alps coming to his 
home.
  I dedicated his plant across the Rhine across from Strasbourg, 
France, and Kehl, Germany.
  But that 2-percent plant all around the world is an overproduction of 
steel.
  While they argue about steel--I have it in my backyard with NuCor, 
which doesn't have any legacy problems. It is the most productive steel 
plant in the entire world. Yet we are importing steel at less than cost 
on the dock right in front of the Customs house where I have my office 
in Charleston, SC, to furnish steel all over the Southeast from Brazil. 
That is the kind of situation we are in.
  After 100 years, Teddy Roosevelt--yes. Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison--
the Forefathers--were all protectionists. Here it is. They had it. This 
is what we have as a result of it.

       More than half the world's cotton, corn, copper, and oil 
     flowed from the American cornucopia, and at least one third 
     of all steel, iron, silver, and gold. . . . The excellence of 
     her manufactured products guaranteed her dominance of world 
     markets. Current advertisements in British magazines gave the 
     impression that the typical Englishman woke to the ring of an 
     Ingersoll alarm, shaved with a Gillette razor, combed his 
     hair with Vaseline tonic, buttoned his Arrow shirt, hurried 
     downstairs for Quaker Oats, California figs, and Maxwell 
     House coffee, commuted in a Westinghouse tram (body by 
     Fisher), rose to his office in an Otis elevator, and worked 
     all day with his Waterman pen under the efficient glare of 
     Edison lightbulbs. ``It only remains,'' one Fleet Street wag 
     suggested, ``for [us] to take American coal to Newcastle.'' 
     Behind the joke lay real concern: the United States was 
     already supplying beer to Germany, pottery to Bohemia, and 
     oranges to Valencia.

  We had a vote yesterday on a 50-percent tariff on importing oranges, 
and they are still bringing them in from Brazil.
  Further:

       As a result of this billowing surge in productivity, Wall 
     Street was awash with foreign capital. Carnegie calculated 
     that America could afford to buy the entire United Kingdom, 
     and settle Britain's national debt in the bargain. For the 
     first time in history,

[[Page S4748]]

     transatlantic money currents were thrusting more powerfully 
     westward than east. Even the Bank of England had begun to 
     borrow money on Wall Street. New York City seemed destined to 
     replace London as the world's financial center.

  Wall Street is on its backside. Why? Because of the enfeeblement of 
the economy as we think of our strength.
  I emphasize that the security of the United States is like a three-
legged stool. You have the one leg for the values as a nation, you have 
the second leg as the military strength, and your third leg as your 
economic strength.
  On values, we have the respect of the world for standing for 
individual freedom and democracy. There is no question whatsoever with 
respect to our military power. And with respect to our economic power, 
it has become fractured as a result of the conduct after World War II 
for the last 50 years, which worked. No one complains about the 
Marshall plan and the treating of foreign trade as foreign aid.
  But this is what has happened as a result. It has to stop.
  Two-thirds of the clothing we wear is imported; 88.5 percent of the 
shoes on the floor in the Senate are imported; over half of electric 
motors and portable electric hand tools; 71.8 percent of our aircraft 
engines and our gas turbines are imported; over a third of our motor 
vehicles are imported; over half of the office machines; 95.5 percent 
of consumer electronics--we hardly make those anymore--70 percent of 
the televisions; 86.7 percent of radio and television broadcasting 
equipment; over half of the photographic cameras, 80.8 percent; 82.8 
percent of the luggage; 70.3 percent of the bicycles; and 84.8 percent 
of the toys.
  I hear constantly, ``high tech, high tech.'' Senator, you don't 
understand. We are going away from the smokestack industries and we are 
going high tech.
  Look here. Over half of the semiconductors are imported--we are not 
producing the semiconductors that we consume. We are importing the 
majority of what we consume, and the same thing is true with computers.
  We have a deficit in the balance of trade.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the list printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Trade
                    Product                       deficit     Percentage
                                                 (millions)   of imports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pneumatic tires and tubes.....................       -2,286         31.8
Apparel.......................................      -56,225         57.6
Footwear......................................      -14,192         88.5
Steel mill products...........................      -10,114         21.3
Air-conditioning equipment/parts..............         -449         23.0
Household Appliances..........................       -2,441         31.5
Wrapping, packaging, can-sealing..............         -442         26.2
Textile Machinery.............................         -562         58.3
Electric motors and generators etc............       -2,746         29.8
Electrical transformers, static converters....       -3,404         51.8
Portable electric handtools...................         -808         36.5
Electric lamps and portable electric lights...         -682         39.7
Aircraft engines and gas turbines.............        4,072         71.8
Internal combustion piston engines............       -1,724         24.8
Motor vehicles................................     -106,727         35.6
Office machines...............................         -766         50.7
Consumer electronics..........................      -19,005         95.5
Television receivers and video monitors.......       -6,549         69.2
Radio and television broadcasting equip.......       -4,576         86.7
Semiconductors and integrated circuits........       -2,619         51.2
Computers, peripherals and parts..............      -45,085         56.5
Optical goods, including ophthalmic goods.....       -1,887         56.5
Photographic cameras and equipment............       -3,499         46.8
Watches and clocks............................       -3,006         80.8
Luggage.......................................       -2,489         82.8
Bicycles and certain parts....................       -1,113         70.3
Toys..........................................       -7,930         84.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, you get an idea of America going out 
of business, but more than anything else, we ought to look at 
Saturday's business section of the Washington Post.
  In contrast to Teddy Roosevelt, and the beginning of the last 
century, let us define where we are today. An article is entitled 
``Buying American? Maybe Not.''
  I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, May 18, 2002]

                       Buying American? Maybe Not


                    Many U.S. Brands European-Owned

                             (By T.R. Reid)

       Let's imagine a typical American couple--we'll call them 
     Bill and Betty Yankee--using a long weekend for an all-
     American vacation.
       Bill, an engineer at Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., in Upstate 
     New York, and Betty, a clerk at Casual Corner, take their 
     Jeep down to the Amoco station for a fill-up, pop a Dave 
     Matthews album into the cassette player and head west. They 
     drive all day, except for a quick lunch at Burger King, and 
     stop for the night at a Holiday Inn outside Pittsburgh. In 
     their room, Bill smokes a couple of Lucky Strikes and watches 
     ``A Beautiful Mind'' on pay-per-view, while Betty curls up 
     with a bottle of Snapple and the new Philip Roth novel she 
     just received from the Literary Guild.
       The next day, they get some cash at a Mellon Bank ATM, fill 
     the tank at a Shell station and drive all the way to Chicago. 
     There they meet their daughter Barb, a copywriter at the Leo 
     Burnett advertising agency, who proudly shows her parents the 
     ad she has written for Taster's Choice coffee. Barb's 
     husband, Bob, a reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times, is 
     delighted with the Brooks Brothers necktie his in-laws 
     brought him.
       It all sounds thoroughly American. However, just about 
     every product and service that the Yankee family bought or 
     used on this trip came from European-owned companies.
       The family Jeep is made by Germany's DaimlerChrysler. The 
     Amoco station belongs to the British oil company BP and the 
     Shell station to Royal Dutch Shell, an Anglo-Dutch 
     combination.
       Burger King is owned by Britain's beverage giant Diageo, 
     Holiday Inn by the big British hotel firm Six Continents. 
     Mellon Bank is a subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland. 
     The Oscar-winning movie ``A Beautiful Mind'' was released by 
     Universal Studios, a subsidiary of the French media colossus 
     Vivendi Universal, which is also a major operator of pay-per-
     view television in the United States. Philip Roth's 
     publisher, Houghton Mifflin, is another Vivendi subsidiary. 
     The Literary Guild is part of the global empire of the German 
     publishing giant Bertelsmann. Lucky Strikes are made by 
     London-based British American Tobacco. Snapple is owned by 
     Britain's Cadbury Schweppes. Taster's Choice coffee belongs 
     to Nestle SA of Switzerland.
       It's fitting, in a way, that the Yankee family is 
     constantly buying from European companies, because all four 
     of the Yankees--like millions of other Americans today--are 
     employed by European-owned firms. Niagara Mohawk is one of 
     several American power utilities owned by Britain's National 
     Grid. Both Brooks Brothers and the 1,000-store Casual Corner 
     chain are part of an Italian conglomerate, Retail Brand 
     Alliance. The Leo Burnett agency belongs to a French group, 
     Publicis. Even a product as localized as the Chicago Sun-
     Times is owned by a company that is owned by the London media 
     magnate Conrad Black.
       ``We live in a globalized world, and the products Americans 
     use now can be owned by companies almost everywhere,'' notes 
     John Palmer, a director of the European Policy Centre, a 
     Brussels-based think tank. ``Since we've seen the rise of 
     some very powerful European multinationals in the recent 
     past, it's only natural that these companies would extend 
     their reach to the U.S.''
       The seemingly endless web of European connections woven 
     through corporate America today reflects a surge of 
     investment from Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, 
     Italy, Ireland, Scandinavia and other parts of Western Europe 
     over the past decade. The long U.S. economic boom of the '90s 
     drew hundreds of billions of dollars from European investors 
     into American companies, according to the European-American 
     Business Council, an advocacy group based in Washington. 
     Europe is by far the top source of foreign direct investment 
     in the United States.
       European investors say the flow of money across the 
     Atlantic is a tribute to the strength and the promise of the 
     U.S. economy.
       ``Why invest in the U.S.A.? It's simple,'' says Sir Ian 
     Prosser, chairman of Six Continents PLC, the hotel firm with 
     headquarters in London. ``It's a great economy, and it 
     produces great returns. Beyond that, the U.S. is so 
     competitive that we know the things we learn operating there 
     will help us in all our other markets around the world.''
       Money flows the other way, too. Through names like 
     McDonald's, Starbucks or the Gap, U.S. investment is evident 
     in virtually every European city. But similarly, the American 
     presence is not restricted to American labels. Such famous 
     European car brands as Volvo, Jaguar, Aston Martin and Land 
     Rover are all owned by Ford Motor Co.
       Even so, the United States is a net gainer, by hundreds of 
     billions of dollars, from the back-and- forth investment. In 
     2000, according to Commerce Department figures, U.S. direct 
     investment in Europe reached $650 billion; European 
     investment in the United States was almost $900 billion. In 
     economic terms, the big U.S. surplus in direct investment 
     helps pay for the big U.S. deficit in international trade.
       The European-American Business Council says that Europeans 
     are the top foreign investors in 44 states, with Texas and 
     California receiving the most funds. In Maryland, 60 percent, 
     or $6.8 billion, of foreign investment money has come from 
     Europe. Virginia has $14.7 billion in European investments, 
     representing 68 percent of total foreign investment.
       Some 3.9 million Americans work directly for European-owned 
     companies, the council says.
       The result of this transatlantic tidal wave of investment 
     is that many of the products that seem most familiar to 
     American consumers now come from European companies.
       Even the word ``America'' in the brand name doesn't imply 
     American ownership anymore. The American Heritage Dictionary 
     is another Vivendi property. RCA Records, once part of the 
     Radio Corporation of America, belongs to Bertelsmann. There 
     may be

[[Page S4749]]

     nothing more American than apple pie, but Mott's apple pie 
     filling, along with Mott's apple juice and apple sauce, are 
     British-owned.
       Europeans have also put major amounts of money into 
     American financial companies. In addition to Mellon Bank, 
     Royal Bank of Scotland owns more than 15 other U.S. banking 
     institutions. The respected investment bank once known as 
     First Boston is now Credit Suisse First Boston, a unit of 
     Zurich-based Credit Suisse Group.
       In Baltimore, fast-growing Allfirst Bank is a subsidiary of 
     Allied Irish Banks of Dublin, and the city's traditional 
     brokerage house, Alex. Brown, belongs to Deutsche Bank.
       Just over a decade ago, when Japanese companies were 
     pouring large sums into U.S. businesses and real estate, the 
     investment sparked fear and anger among many Americans. There 
     was a concern that Tokyo was snatching up America's corporate 
     jewels. When Sony purchased Columbia Pictures, for example, 
     Newsweek's cover featured the Statue of Liberty dressed in a 
     kimono and the headline ``Japan Invades Hollywood.''
       But the new wave of European investment has spawned almost 
     no adverse reaction among Americans. Perhaps Americans are 
     proud that foreign investors want to put their money into the 
     U.S. economy. Perhaps there is a growing public awareness of 
     the process of globalization, with multinational companies 
     buying and selling subsidiaries all over the world. Perhaps 
     Americans just don't know how much of their daily commerce is 
     done with European-owned firms. Or could it be that Americans 
     don't mind if blue-eyed Christians from Europe buy their 
     companies but are less comfortable when Asians do?
       Since the U.S. government, industry and financial markets 
     all welcome the influx of funds, there's probably not much 
     relief available for any Americans who are worried about the 
     wave of European ownership. The only thing to do, really, is 
     head out to a bar and drown your worries with a classic 
     American drink like a ``seven and seven.''
       Of course, this might not be a completely satisfying 
     response, because both parts of that familiar cocktail come 
     from British companies today: Seagram's Seven Crown belongs 
     to Diageo, and 7Up is one of the flagship brands of Cadbury 
     Schweppes.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I will not read the entire article. It 
is very interesting.

       Let's imagine a typical American couple--we'll call them 
     Bill and Betty Yankee--using a long weekend for an all-
     American vacation.
       Bill, an engineer at Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. in Upstate 
     New York, and Betty, a clerk at Casual Corner, take their 
     Jeep down to the Amoco station for a fill-up, pop a Dave 
     Matthews album into the cassette player and head west. They 
     drive all day, except for a quick lunch at Burger King, and 
     stop for the night at a Holiday Inn outside Pittsburgh. In 
     their room, Bill smokes a couple of Lucky Strikes and watches 
     ``A Beautiful Mind'' on pay-per-view, while Betty curls up 
     with a bottle of Snapple and the new Philip Roth novel she 
     just received from the Literary Guild.
       The next day, they get some cash at a Mellon Bank ATM, fill 
     the tank at a Shell station and drive all the way to Chicago. 
     There they meet their daughter Barb, a copywriter at the Leo 
     Burnett advertising agency, who proudly shows her parents the 
     ad she has written for Taster's Choice coffee. Barb's 
     husband, Bob, a reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times, is 
     delighted with the Brooks Brothers necktie his in-laws 
     brought him.
       It all sounds thoroughly American. However, just about 
     every product and service that the Yankee family bought or 
     used on this trip came from European-owned companies.
       The family Jeep is made by Germany's DaimlerChrysler. The 
     Amoco station belongs to the British oil company BP and the 
     Shell station to Royal Dutch Shell, an Anglo-Dutch 
     combination.
       Burger King is owned by Britain's beverage giant Diageo, 
     Holiday Inn by the big British hotel firm Six Continents. 
     Mellon Bank is a subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland. 
     The Oscar- winning movie ``A Beautiful Mind'' was released by 
     Universal Studios, a subsidiary of the French media colossus 
     Vivendi Universal, which is also a major operator of pay-per-
     view television in the United States. Philip Roth's 
     publisher, Houghton Mifflin, is another Vivendi subsidiary. 
     The Literary Guild is part of the global empire of the German 
     publishing giant Bertelsmann. Lucky Strikes are made by 
     London-based British American Tobacco. Snapple is owned by 
     Britain's Cadbury Schweppes. Taster's Choice coffee belongs 
     to Nestle SA of Switzerland.
       It's fitting, in a way, that the Yankee family is 
     constantly buying from European companies, because all four 
     of the Yankees--like millions of other Americans today--are 
     employed by European-owned firms. Niagara Mohawk is one of 
     several American power utilities owned by Britain's National 
     Grid. Both Brooks Brothers and the 1,000-store Casual Corner 
     chain are part of an Italian conglomerate, Retail Brand 
     Alliance. The Leo Burnett agency belongs to a French group, 
     Publicis. Even a product as localized as the Chicago Sun-
     Times is owned by a company that is owned by the London media 
     magnate Conrad Black.

  The entire article is in the Record.
  It is just ludicrous when you hear this talk about free trade, free 
trade, and global competition. I don't want to sound like Al Gore, but 
I know a little bit about global trade. I didn't invent it. But 40 
years ago, as a Governor, I went to both Latin America and to Europe to 
seek industry, and today we have 125 German industries in South 
Carolina. I have not had much luck recently on carpetbagging New York, 
but I used to go up there regularly and move everything I could find up 
there down to South Carolina. But the opportunities now are in Europe 
and out in the Pacific rim.
  I called on Michelin exactly 40 years ago--well, 42, I guess--in late 
May or June of 1960. We have four Michelin French plants, their North 
American headquarters.
  So don't lecture us, who have lost 53,900 textile jobs, about 
globalization. The fact is, there is no such thing as free trade. Never 
has been. Never will be. In the earliest days----
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I am going to get through my thoughts here, and then I 
will be glad to yield. But I do not have it on the record, and I want 
to put this particular subject on the record as I see it and can 
remember it.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I just want to ask unanimous consent for 
something.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized following Senator 
Hollings.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Very good. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. President, what happened was, in our earliest days we had just 
won our freedom when the David Ricardo comparative advantage crowd in 
the mother country, Britain, corresponded with Alexander Hamilton and 
said: Now what you ought to do is trade with us what you produce best, 
and we will trade back with you what we produce best--free trade, free 
trade, Adam Smith, market forces, and everything else of that kind.
  Alexander Hamilton wrote a report on manufacturers. I have a copy of 
it now. There is one original copy over in the Library of Congress. But 
in a line, he told the Brits: Bug off. We are not going to remain your 
colony, importing all the manufactured goods and exporting to you our 
rice, our cotton, our indigo, our lumber, timber, and iron ore, and so 
forth.
  The second bill that passed this Congress in its history--the first 
bill being for the Seal of the United States--the second bill in the 
history of the Congress, that passed on July 4, 1789, was 
protectionism, a tariff bill of 50 percent on 60 articles. 
Protectionism was supported throughout the building of America during 
the 1800s--Lincoln with steel protectionism; protectionist Roosevelt 
with agricultural support prices, protective quotas and import quotas; 
Eisenhower in the middle 1950s with oil import quotas, protectionist 
Eisenhower. Those who built protected.
  After all, that is the oath we take, to preserve and protect. We have 
the FBI to protect us from enemies within, the Army to protect us from 
enemies without, Social Security to protect us from the ravages of old 
age, Medicare to protect us from ill health; the clean air, clean 
water--we have safety rules and everything. The fundamental job of 
Government is protection.
  Here we have the highest standard of living. All these Senators run 
around on the floor, they want the environment, they want safety, they 
want parental leave, and they want plant closing notice. Fine. We have 
them all on the books. But you can go down to Mexico for 58 cents an 
hour and none of that. And if your competition goes, you are going to 
have to leave. And that is what has been happening.
  But you have these folks on the floor of the Senate who are 
determined to wreck the economy. There never has been any such thing as 
free trade, and never will be. Almost like world peace: you strive for 
it. You strive for it, and it will not happen in my lifetime or your 
lifetime.
  More than anything else, all you have to do is just look at the books 
published by none other than the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative--``Foreign Trade Barriers.'' This one in 1992 had 267 
pages. They are talking about, oh, the wonderful success of fast

[[Page S4750]]

track, fast track; we are going to really bring down trade barriers, 
increase jobs.
  This one is for 2002: ``National Trade Estimate Report of Foreign 
Trade Barriers.'' This has gone up to 458 pages. It has gone up 200 
pages. They are increasing the barriers. They are competing. Reciprocal 
free trade, reciprocal free trade, said Cordell Hull, to compete. So 
what happens is, we have the competition of the countries themselves.
  Let me explain just what all they do. They begin with import 
licensing. We do not have that. You have a tough time getting an import 
license into Japan or even into China or Korea. If you want to import 
textiles into Korea, you have to have a vote of the Korean textile 
authority. The ones over there with whom you are competing vote you 
out. You never get in.
  In banking, they talk about free trade, free trade. The day before 
yesterday, the Japanese lowered the yen. That is market manipulation. 
So with a lower yen, they can increase their exports. That is not free 
trade, free market, free market, free trade. They have inspection 
practices.
  Let's put it this way. If you want a 2002 Toyota in France, it is on 
the dock in Le Havre being inspected, and by January 1, 2003, you can 
get last year's model, 2002. The same with the CDs and VCRs, they put 
them up at a place in France. They have all of these inspection 
practices. They are all tricks of the trade.
  We just had a hearing on Enron. The lawyer had a memo there about all 
the tricks of the trade. They have such things as different snow when 
you go to sell ski equipment in Japan. And I have a paper company, West 
Virginia Pulp and Paper. They tried to emulate and mimic and produce 
cigarette paper. They worked on it for 2 years, got the exact duplicate 
of it and everything over there, and they still wouldn't let them bring 
that cigarette paper in. They said it was still different.
  What you have in essence is the fundamental practice. That is what 
has to be emphasized as I try to explain this. We operate in the free 
market, capitalistic market in the United States on price and quality. 
Not so in global competition. They couldn't care less about price. They 
try for a good price and try for quality, but it is below price, below 
the production cost. That Lexus I have that costs $35,000 in 
Charleston, SC, costs $45,000 to $50,000 in downtown Tokyo. All of the 
prices are less than cost. Can you understand why they fought so 
vigorously the idea of doing away with our dumping laws? We can easily 
prove they are selling as loss leaders. They are selling at less than 
cost in the United States of America, but that is the name of the game.
  As I said, the Japanese have already taken over a third of the 
automobile market, already a majority of the semiconductor, and a 
majority of the computer market. You can go right on down the list. 
Once they get market share, they will run the prices up. The 
competition is not with respect to productivity. We are constantly 
chastising the workers of the United States. You go to the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics or the economic section of the United Nations; they 
both agree that the most productive industrial worker in the world is 
the U.S. industrial worker. There is no question about their producing, 
but we are not in the competition. We are talking about quality and 
productivity. They are talking about dumping. That is why they fought 
right here to a tie vote with respect to trying to get that amendment. 
That is why the U.S. Trade Representative went to Doha and said: Don't 
worry about it. We will have a good conference because we are going to 
get rid of the dumping laws.
  That is exactly what they are saying. Now they have fast track, and 
they are ready to do it. They can get rid of the dumping laws. This is 
a fix on that.
  More than anything else, you have to understand the competition. The 
competition isn't with respect just to market share and countries. On 
the contrary, we have met the enemy, and it is us. I will never forget 
my good friend Bobby Kennedy who used to have this desk. He came into 
the limelight in America with a book called ``The Enemy Within.'' He 
was talking about Hoffa and organized labor.
  I can write that same book, ``The Enemy Within,'' about management. 
It is corporate executive America. They couldn't care less about it.
  I hope I can get an article here by Henry Kauffman. I had the 
article, but I don't know that I brought that over this morning because 
I didn't realize I was going to have this opportunity. He said way back 
that people in the olden days when you owned the horse, you were 
supposed to feed the horse while it was alive, and if the horse was 
dead, the owner was responsible to bury the horse.

  That is not the case with corporate executive America today. They 
just pass through, sometimes hostile takeovers and everything else of 
that kind. They are trying to get the stock up over a 3-year period, 
give them a golden parachute, and move on. They don't feel the 
obligation to stay. So what happens is, they have learned on the one 
hand that they can save tremendous money in cost with respect to 
producing offshore. Thirty percent of volume or sales is in your labor 
cost and manufacturing. And you can save as much as 20 percent of your 
sales cost by moving to an offshore low-wage country or down to Mexico.
  If you retain your executive office and your sales force but move 
your manufacturer offshore to a low-wage country, what you do is, if 
you have $500 million in sales, you can make $100 million before taxes 
or you can continue to work your own people and go broke. That is the 
job policy of corporate America, adopted in fast track by the Senate. 
That is what I am trying to bring home to those who are not thinking, 
including my farmer friends.
  Yes, I listed the different industrial articles. We have a deficit in 
the balance of trade in cotton. You can go right on down the 
agricultural commodities. Let China keep coming, and in 3 or 4 years we 
will have a deficit in the balance of trade in wheat. We have 
competition in durum wheat. That is why we have one friend here from 
North Dakota. But there is no question in my mind that what we have is 
just that, the enemy within.
  What do they do? They band together not to build, as we are 
responsible to build this country in the Senate, not to create jobs, as 
our primary responsibility to keep America economically strong and 
create jobs and job opportunities, but theirs is to export the jobs as 
fast as they can. They band together with the Business Roundtable, the 
National Association of Manufacturers, the conference board, but more 
particularly, the Chamber of Commerce.
  I saw that change come about with Tom Donahue when we went over 
there. That National Chamber of Commerce couldn't care less about main 
street America. They have no idea of creating jobs or opportunity or 
representing main street America. I could tell you now, I was in this 
before. I will never forget--I might as well identify myself as not 
antilabor, but certainly I am not ready to vote just labor's way. I am 
from a right-to-work State. I voted for that law. And more 
particularly, when we had a debate when Russell Long was chairman of 
the Finance Committee, I was the fellow who blocked labor law reform on 
eight occasions. We had eight votes up and down on cloture. I won on 
all eight votes.
  In years passed, I have received honors from the Chamber of Commerce. 
So I know from whence I come and speak. We have developed more industry 
than that Donahue. He came from a trucking outfit. They put him on a 
few boards. He has picked up here on trial lawyers and everything else 
like that.
  But what we have confronting us in the Senate is not weapons of mass 
destruction and Saddam. We have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 
weapons of class destruction.
  The greatness of America is when Henry Ford said: Look, I want that 
fellow who is producing the automobile to be able to buy it. He started 
Middle America, the industrial wage. They had benefits and health care 
and everything else of that kind. These are the jobs we are losing hand 
over fist.
  The first thing we brought out on debate on so-called free trade--
they would not even admit it from the Finance Committee--is not how we 
were going to create jobs. First, they added how are we going to take 
care of those who lost the jobs--"adjustment assistance,'' they call 
it. So we are not producing, and we are into a situation where you have 
limited time.

[[Page S4751]]

  I understand the time will run out this afternoon around 4 o'clock. 
They worked it into this particular situation. Yes, everybody wants to 
go home for the Memorial Day break. They always do it. When we 
adjourned before with GATT in November, we were going home for 
Thanksgiving. They always find a holiday and work it up and fix the 
vote.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this 
particular point the article in the Washington Post, dated December 26, 
1993.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Dec. 26, 1993]

 The NAFTA-Math; Clinton Got His Trade Deal, But How Many Millions Did 
                          It Cost the Nation?

                           (By Charles Lewis)

       The orgy of deal-making that preceded the House of 
     Representatives vote on NAFTA illustrated just how little the 
     mercenary culture of Washington has changed since the arrival 
     of a Democratic administration.
       Estimates of the total cost of the deals around NAFTA vary 
     widely. Gary Hufbauer, a trade expert who has written 
     favorably about NAFTA for the Institute for International 
     Economics, told the Associated Press that the last-minute 
     deals cost in the ``tens of millions of dollars.'' Public 
     Citizen, the consumer organization founded by Ralph Nader, 
     estimates that the deals cost at least $4.4 billion. The 
     Nation magazine, which has been critical of NAFTA and 
     ``Republicrat'' Clinton, says the total cost of the eleventh 
     hour wheeling-and-dealing might ultimately amount to $50 
     billion.
       Hyperbole aside, the quantifiable cost to the taxpayer of 
     the NAFTA deals will be at least $300 million. American 
     consumers will also pay higher prices on a wide variety of 
     goods because of special interest tariff agreements reached 
     during the NAFTA bazaar. Rep. Dick Zimmer (R-N.J.), who voted 
     for NAFTA, is disgusted about the ``presidential giveaways,'' 
     and he plans to introduce legislation in January to repeal 
     the various NAFTA deals, arguing that ``such sordid behavior 
     debases the legislative process.'' But good luck trying to 
     figure out what deals were made. Many of the particulars of 
     what transpired have disappeared like steam into the air. 
     Normally loquacious members of Congress are tongue-tied or 
     unavailable to comment about their NAFTA votes, while White 
     House officials dismiss the subject as sour grapes. But many 
     of the details of numerous deals have been documented and 
     confirmed. They illustrate the financial forces that shaped 
     Congress's voting and may have tipped the balance in favor of 
     the agreement.
       The biggest single taxpayer outlay was snared by Rep. 
     Esteban Torres (D-Calif.). Concerned about NAFTA support 
     among Hispanic members of Congress, the White House wrote a 
     ``U.S.-Mexico Executive Agreement'' to create a bi-national 
     North American Development Bank. The cost will be at least 
     $250 million. Torres, a former United Auto Workers union 
     official, voted for NAFTA after receiving this expensive 
     concession.
       Two undecided Georgia Democrats extracted $15 million from 
     the administration. The aptly named Rep. Nathan Deal and Rep. 
     George ``Buddy'' Darden decided to vote for NAFTA when 
     the White House agreed to hire 136 new customs agents just 
     for the textile and apparel industries. As Darden told the 
     Atlanta Constitution, ``I was very impressed by the White 
     House's responsiveness to the textile industry.''
       To secure votes in the Texas delegation, the administration 
     promised to speed up the building of the Center for the Study 
     of Western Hemispheric Trade somewhere in Texas. Cost: $10 
     million. $33 million to vegetable interests in Florida to 
     complete an agricultural research station.
       One of the most amusing illustrations of how difficult it 
     is to arrive at the true cost of NAFTA involves Rep. Eddie 
     Bernice Johnson, a first-term Democrat from Texas. The 
     Journal of Commerce broke the story that Johnson agreed to 
     support NAFTA after an unnamed administration official 
     promised that the Pentagon would purchase two additional C-17 
     cargo planes--at a cost of $1.4 billion--from the Vought 
     Aircraft factory in her south Dallas district. The 
     controversial military transport plane has an impressive 
     history of technical failures. Johnson claims she was 
     misquoted. Her decision to support NAFTA, she says, was based 
     on the ``broad needs'' of her constituents; the Journal of 
     Commerce reporter stands by his story.
       That's one reason why estimates of the NAFTA price tag 
     vary: Public Citizen includes this alleged $1.4 billion deal 
     in their estimate of $4.4 billion.
       Another reason: the ultimate costs of the special-interest 
     tariff deals before the NAFTA vote are difficult to gauge. 
     For example, a special ``snap-back'' tariff mechanism was 
     agreed to with Mexico to protect Florida citrus growers. If 
     U.S. orange juice concentrate prices fall to certain levels, 
     a tariff is imposed on Mexican oranges; American consumers 
     will be denied the benefits of lower orange juice prices.
       Similar formal ``Executive Letter of Agreement'' tariff 
     agreements were made on sugar and syrup goods, wine and 
     brandy, flat glass, home appliances and bedding components 
     such a springs, iron rails and wooden parts, to name a few. 
     These executive letters of agreement are a form of 
     protectionism extended to certain well-connected business 
     interests. Hufbauer, the pro-NAFTA trade expert, said in a 
     recent interview that they could ``easily cost American 
     consumers hundreds of millions'' of dollars.
       The more candid members of Congress acknowledged that their 
     votes were being bought. Florida Rep. Tom Lewis, a 
     Republican, who supported the pact after the Clinton 
     administration explicitly agreed to raise tariffs temporarily 
     on imported tomatoes from Mexico, told the New York Times, 
     ``I look with disdain on the way this whole thing has been 
     done . . . It almost looks like you're selling your soul.''
       A week before the vote Rep. Bill Brewster (D-Okla.) was 
     undecided about NAFTA. He had two personal meetings with the 
     president and dozens of phone calls from administration 
     officials. He let it be known that he would not supporter 
     NAFTA without specific concessions for his constituents. In 
     the end, as the Washington Times reported, the White House 
     agreed to help cattle ranchers and peanut growers in his 
     district. As Brewster put it, ``I know how this place 
     operates . . . I made sure we got it in writing.''
       Other, savvier deal-makers were explicit about not getting 
     a quid pro quo. Rep. Charlie Rose (D-N.C.) played a crucial 
     role in the House anti-NAFTA working group led by Majority 
     Whip David Bonior until literally hours before the vote. But 
     Rose had told a reporter that ``I could be persuaded by the 
     White House if they were sufficiently serious to lower the 
     tobacco tax to pass NAFTA.'' Rose was then lobbied by the 
     White House and wound up voting for NAFTA.
       ``I didn't sell my vote,'' Rose insisted to reporters. ``I 
     just told those people: `Look, if I vote with you, I want you 
     to be as understanding as you possible can about the kinds of 
     problems agriculture has and needs to address in 1994.''
       In other words, Rose's vote was bought on a layaway plan. 
     The ultimate cost, if any, won't be known until next year, 
     when the Clinton administration sends Congress its proposal 
     to raise taxes on cigarettes.
       After the NAFTA vote, Bill Clinton was compared in these 
     pages and elsewhere to Lyndon Baines Johnson, for his 
     aggressive, unabashed use of political power in dealing with 
     Congress. The comparison implies that pork-barrel politics, 
     while unfortunate and unseemly, is necessary to achieve 
     success, and always has been.
       Perhaps. But LBJ, even in his most legendary arm-twisting 
     mode, never led a domestic lobbying campaign as lopsided as 
     Clinton's NAFTA effort. Forget the testimonials elicited from 
     Nobel laureate economists, the former secretaries of state, 
     former presidents, Lee Iacocca and Bill Gates. Consider the 
     Clinton persuasion tactics in the larger context of the NAFTA 
     lobbying effort.
       Ross Perot, labor unions and other NAFTA opponents spent 
     less than $10 million, according to the Wall Street Journal. 
     Mexican government and business interests, by contrast, 
     retained scores of lobbying, public relations and law firms 
     in Washington at the cost of $30 million. And the leading 
     pro-NAFTA lobbying group, USA*NAFTA, and individuals U.S. 
     corporations with factories in Mexico spent another $10 
     million to promote the pact. Add to these two figures the 
     $300 million in government funds that the Clinton 
     administration committed for the sake of passing NAFTA, and 
     it seems likely that NAFTA proponents outspent their 
     opposition by a margin of more than 30-1.
       More importantly, LBJ never promised to do things 
     differently. Clinton did. In accepting the democratic 
     presidential nomination in July 1992, he declared his 
     antipathy for special-interest wheeling and dealing in 
     Washington. ``For too long, those who play by the rules and 
     keep the faith have gotten the shaft,'' he said. ``And those 
     who cut corners and cut deals have been rewarded.''
       Sixteen months later, when Clinton was in danger of losing 
     vote on NAFTA, those who cut deals were the ones who reaped 
     the biggest rewards. And those who kept the faith that 
     Clinton might change the way politics is done in Washington 
     were the ones who got the shaft.
       Charles Lewis is founder and executive director of the 
     Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit research 
     organization based in Washington and funded by foundations, 
     corporations, labor unions, individuals and revenues from 
     news organizations. Margaret Ebrahim of the center provided 
     research assistance.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, you can find out that they gave a 
cultural center; President Clinton gave golf games; they gave--and this 
is all for NAFTA. That particular article was dated 1993. Anyway, it 
talks about how they fixed fast track and changed the votes on the 
House side. They do the same thing within the Finance Committee. You 
don't have any debate. Without fixing the votes, they cannot get 
cloture--they impress cloture upon you, I should say. You don't get 
time for debate.
  So what we have now is the executives, finally, not only moving their 
manufacturing, they are moving their executive offices to Bermuda.
  I don't think this amendment is up, but I had one with respect to the 
textiles. I wanted to try to compensate those who, in the last 3 
years--1999,

[[Page S4752]]

2000, 2001--have lost their jobs, some 334,000. The cost of the 
amendment itself is about a billion dollars. We are trying to get them 
health care so they can continue and get some kind of training and 
adjustment assistance, having lost their jobs. We were told in NAFTA we 
were going to create jobs, and we lost 53,900 jobs. But not only are we 
losing the jobs, but they have the unmitigated gall--corporate 
America--to move offshore and not pay any taxes. They want that mother 
and father of that 18-year-old we recently lost in Afghanistan--they 
want that mama and daddy, who are working, to pay taxes. You can tell 
this society is on a binge. The President ran adds for 3 minutes, 
saying: Take your trips, go to Disney World, go and take a trip--and 
everything else like that. They don't want to pay for the war.
  Now we have corporate America AWOL from the terrorism war. They are 
all going overseas, down to Grenada, and over to Bermuda and everywhere 
else so they won't pay taxes. Never mind about leveling the playing 
field. You could not blame the other countries that don't have this 
high standard of living. Any one of the countries--in China, they are 
building their industrial capacity just right. Over in China, they say, 
look, in order to sell, you have to produce that Buick car. Wait a 
minute, they say after that, you have to move your research here. The 
most modern automobile research is in China. Of course, they have the 
outstanding engineers at a next-to-nothing cost.
  So now--I don't have the article here--they are moving Japan's 
futuristic research, cutting edge research, into China. So what you 
have is the competition of 1.3 billion producers in agriculture and 
industry, and we are hollering ``fast track, fast track,'' and we have 
to aid somebody. We have run out of gas, as I pointed out. Level the 
playing field? You cannot do it Washington's way, Mr. President.
  They tell me: Senator, don't worry about it, we have to retrain, re-
educate. I will give you an example. Oneida, in South Carolina, makes 
clothes. They have 487 workers. The average age of those 487 workers 
was 47. So we will do it Washington's way and we will train those 487 
workers, and tomorrow morning they are computer operators, expert 
computer operators. Mr. President, are you going to hire the 47-year-
old computer operator or the 21-year-old? You are not going to take on 
the health costs of the 47-year-old. You are not going to take on the 
retirement costs of a 47-year-old. You are going to be hiring the 21-
year-olds.
  When they have lost their jobs, they quit making payments on the 
automobile, and they quit making payments on their house. Some of them 
have lost their houses and everything else like that, with 53,900 in 
South Carolina alone, and 700,000 in the country. These are just the 
ones in the last couple of years we are trying to get at, as we did 
with the steelworkers, and we got a majority vote on that. That is what 
I had lined up. I was going to pay for it by closing the Bermuda tax 
loophole. It is a national disgrace.

  They talk about when they have an intelligence breach--and I never 
accused the President of knowing anything. I don't think it was passed 
on. That is obvious from what I am reading. There isn't any question 
that the fellow up in Minnesota wrote a memo--read Time magazine this 
week--a detailed memo on how they might fly into the World Trade 
Towers. I don't know why they keep getting the fellow from Phoenix, AZ. 
Get the one from Minnesota. He said they might fly into the World Trade 
Towers.
  Seaport security has languished in the House since before Christmas. 
Rail security has languished at the desk since before Christmas. They 
are not about to pay the bills or put on any taxes to pay for this war. 
They want another $4 trillion tax cut. This is one of those situations 
where we need just as much help.
  I wish I had the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, here to 
talk about building and fighting the war and everything else. I never 
heard anything more eloquent on behalf of the steelworkers. I support 
her. She is magnificent. I wish I had her here to describe the plight 
of these textile workers. They are just as important to our security.
  I will emphasize this: In 1961--and it is still on the books today--
there was a national security provision preventing the President from 
taking Executive action in trade, unless he proved first that the item 
in question was important to our national security. I went at that time 
to hearings, along with George Ball from the State Department, Freeman 
of the Department of Agriculture, Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg, 
Secretary of Commerce Luther Hodges, and we had Secretary of the 
Treasury Douglas Dillon. We had the hearings, and it is on the books of 
the United States of America that, next to steel, textiles is the 
second most important to our national security. So we are not just 
talking about a cheap price. America wasn't built on consumerism; 
America was built on building and creating jobs.
  For 100-some years, in Teddy Roosevelt's time when we had a strong 
America, we didn't even have the income tax. The tariffs and 
protectionism built this country, and under Eisenhower, Roosevelt, and 
other distinguished Presidents, we continued to build.
  This crowd has nothing but boast politics. They couldn't care less. 
Fast track--we will just vote it. The excuse will be I had to do it. It 
was either take it or leave it. It ought to be a shame to vote against 
the Constitution. Article I, section 8, not the President, not the U.S. 
Trade Representative, but the Congress of the United States shall 
regulate foreign commerce.
  Here I am begging to perform my own responsibility, and the vote is: 
You do not have the responsibility; we are going to do it, and you have 
to take it or leave it, up or down; you are not going to be in charge--
fast track.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields the floor and reserves the 
remainder of his time.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, by previous consent, I was to be 
recognized following the presentation by Senator Hollings. I wish to 
propose, for the convenience of others in the Chamber, a slightly 
different arrangement. Senator Grassley wishes to be recognized. I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Grassley be recognized for 20 minutes, 
with Senator Landrieu following for 15 minutes, Senator Corzine for 15 
minutes; and, following that, I be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak against the Hollings 
amendment that is before the Senate. I will tell you two reasons I 
strongly oppose the amendment.
  My comments are in regard to why trade adjustment assistance should 
not be expanded in the way Senator Hollings proposes it. Before I give 
those reasons, I remind my colleagues of the tremendous expansion of 
trade adjustment assistance that is already in the bipartisan bill 
before the Senate. A lot of programs that are part of trade adjustment 
assistance have never been part of the program in the 40-year history 
of trade adjustment assistance.
  We in a bipartisan way in this body are very concerned about workers 
who are dislocated for trade or economic reasons. The usual retraining 
and support programs are being continued, but as one of several 
examples of additional programs, we are going to provide health 
insurance benefits for dislocated workers because of trade under trade 
adjustment assistance.
  When I speak against any further outrageous expansions of this 
program, as Senator Hollings' amendment would do, I do not want anybody 
saying that those of us who oppose it do not have any concern about 
those who are dislocated because of trade.
  First, this is an extremely expensive, radical expansion of the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Program that cannot be justified in any fashion 
as a program that is related to trade. In fact, this amendment 
completely severs the traditional 40-year link between adjustment 
assistance and trade. All you have to do is work in one specific 
industry during a specific period of time and you are eligible to 
receive benefits.
  The fact is, workers in the textile industry and in other industries 
as well often lose their jobs for reasons having nothing to do with 
trade. Often workers might lose employment because of

[[Page S4753]]

new advances in technology, changes in the national economy, their 
company is not well run, or because of improvements in productivity. 
For all of those, we have programs on the books to help those 
dislocated workers, albeit dislocated unrelated to trade.

  The textile industry in particular has seen tremendous changes 
because of new technology, such as the introduction of new computer-
assisted design techniques that have often transformed many labor-
intensive jobs into more high-tech workplaces over the past decade.
  While it is certainly regrettable that these new developments in 
technology mean some workers lose their jobs, we should try to help 
these workers and help their families at the same time and do it as 
much as we can through other types of assistance. They are not workers, 
though, who have lost their jobs because of trade.
  Furthermore, I do not know on what basis we can simply give 
Government benefits to workers in one industry but not to workers in 
other industries. Do not workers in industries other than textiles also 
deserve the same treatment?
  The bottom line is the purpose of trade adjustment assistance. It is 
designed to help workers who are adversely affected solely because of 
trade.
  This amendment would signal a radical transformation of trade 
adjustment assistance into another welfare program with no connection 
to trade. It would also sharply boost the cost of the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance Program. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this 
provision alone would cost over $700 million in a 10-year period. That 
would nearly double the cost of the entire Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Program with just the one provision: The provision put forth by Senator 
Hollings.
  I regret that any American loses his or her job. There is nobody who 
wants to see an American lose their job. I have had the opportunity 
twice in my industrial employment to lose jobs, once in 1960 and once 
in 1971.
  In 1971, I drew unemployment compensation for a short period of time. 
I know what it is like to be dislocated from a job, but I was not 
dislocated because of trade. There were other programs that helped me 
during that period of time, and those programs are available for people 
because we know that losing a job is a terrible blow to an individual. 
It affects the entire family. But there are other programs designed to 
help these individuals.
  We should not take money away from other Federal programs and from 
other pressing needs in our country to pay benefits under a trade 
adjustment assistance program to workers just in one industry, and 
particularly when they are not affected by trade.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. President, while I have time remaining, I wish to speak 
generally--how much time do I have Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the underlying 
legislation.
  When talking about trade promotion authority, opponents seem to love 
to use the term ``fast track'' because I think they believe that this 
sounds somewhat sneaky or somewhat uncontrollable. That is a shame. It 
is a shame because the term ``fast track'' does not really reflect what 
this legislation is all about and the procedures that are connected 
with giving the President the authority to negotiate trade agreements.
  The term we use in this legislation, ``trade promotion authority,'' 
is more accurate. In reality, trade promotion authority is a contract. 
It is a contract between the President and the Congress. When the 
Congress extends trade promotion authority to the President, the 
Congress agrees to authorize the President to negotiate trade 
agreements and to do it on behalf of 280 million Americans.
  Why do we have this contract with the President of the United States? 
We have it because there is only one person who can speak on behalf of 
280 million people in international affairs, and that is our chief 
diplomat, the Chief Executive of our country, the President of the 
United States. It is that simple. We cannot have 535 people in Congress 
negotiating with other nations. It would not ever work.
  If we are going to succeed at the negotiating table, our trading 
partners need to know that the person to whom they are speaking has 
authority to negotiate.
  Trade promotion authority not only gives that authority to negotiate, 
but it gives a great deal of credibility to our President at these 
tables. That is what the trade promotion authority contract between the 
Congress and the President is all about.
  Let me be clear. The President does not go into trade negotiations 
without guidance and without always being reminded that the 
constitutional power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce rests 
with the Congress of the United States. Through this trade promotion 
authority bill, the Congress gives very careful direction to the 
President, with detailed lists of instructions. The Congress tells the 
President--we do that through this legislation--if he follows these 
directions we give him, if he fulfills the details of consultation 
procedures laid out in this bill, we will do three things.
  First, we will actually consider the agreement. We will not have 
these agreements sitting around collecting dust on Capitol Hill. The 
Congress will actually pick up this agreement and we will consider it. 
Now, that does not mean we will agree with the bill, it does not mean 
we would pass the bill, but we are committed to considering it.
  Secondly, we will not change the agreement before we consider it. We 
authorize the President to negotiate. He follows our directions. He 
consults with the Members of Congress through the process. We know what 
is in the negotiated instrument. Now we will consider it without 
changing it.
  Third, we will limit debate on the agreement. We will not tie it up 
in endless debate in the Congress. That is the contract we have with 
the President of the United States, an agreement between the President 
and the Congress that if he will do certain things for us, we will do 
certain things.
  Why do we do it that way? We do it because it empowers us as a 
Congress, it empowers us as a nation. Without trade promotion 
authority, the President has no clear direction from Congress. He can 
basically negotiate anything he wants without consulting with Congress, 
but he will not do it in a credible way with the other nations that are 
with him because they are not apt to agree if they are not certain that 
a final agreement will be considered by Congress No. 1, and not changed 
by Congress No. 2, and actually voted upon.
  Congress can selfishly observe its constitutional power because we 
keep a watchful eye on the President of the United States over many 
months, sometimes over many years, in the process of the negotiations 
to reach an agreement.
  Trade promotion authority also empowers us as a nation of 280 million 
people. Our foreign trading partners know the President speaks for the 
Nation in international trade and that he has the backing of Congress. 
With this knowledge, they can be sure any agreement concluded with the 
President will be considered by Congress without being amended to 
death. That empowers our Nation to get the best bargain we can at the 
negotiating table.
  What happens if the President does not fulfill his end of the 
bargain? What if he does not follow Congress's direction or fails to 
consult with the Congress as the law requires? Then he does not get the 
benefit of agreement. The trade promotion authority bill itself 
contains procedural enforcement mechanisms to ensure the President does 
not overstep his agreement with the Congress. Trade promotion authority 
procedures are very carefully balanced in a thoughtful way for the 
President and the Congress to work together to advance the economic 
interests of our Nation. It is a procedure that has worked well for 
over 50 years, and on the basis of this legislation, trade promotion 
authority has worked well for 25 years. It is also a procedure that 
since 1995 our Nation has gone too long without. One hundred thirty 
agreements around the world have been negotiated. Our President has not 
had the credibility to be at the table. He has not been at the table. 
We have been at the table of three bilateral agreements but otherwise 
not. So the interests of

[[Page S4754]]

280 million Americans have never been represented, never been 
protected, and the rest of the world is going to move on.

  Prior to 5 or 6 years ago, the rest of the world used to wait for the 
United States to take the first step. We have an opportunity now by 
passing this legislation to put our Nation once again in the lead. So 
that is why I urge my colleagues to work our way through the rest of 
these amendments and to work with Senator Baucus and me to pass this 
bill and help get our Nation's trade back on track.
  How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. There is also a lot of benefit in trade promotion 
authority and trade agreements for the American farmers and ranchers, 
and it is beneficial to us because our farmers and ranchers are 
competitive and technologically advanced in the world. The United 
States has long been a world leader in agricultural exports. Dollar for 
dollar, the United States exports more meat than steel, more corn than 
cosmetics, more bakery products than motor boats, more fruits and 
vegetables than household appliances. One in three acres of 
agricultural production of the United States is exported.
  In 2000, the U.S. agricultural community exported $51 billion in 
products and supported at least 750,000 American workers. With 96 
percent of the world's population living outside the United States, 
there is a huge market for food products of American farmers and 
ranchers.
  In the absence of trade promotion authority, other countries have 
entered into trade agreements that have driven foreign consumers from 
the U.S. agricultural market.
  Burger King restaurants in Chile buy potatoes from Canada. Canada's 
free trade agreement with Chile gives their farmers eased access to the 
Chilean market while American farm products are subject to high tariffs 
that drive up the price to the consumer. So, consequently, we do not 
sell to Chile.
  Trade promotion authority will expand existing markets, open new 
markets for American food products, and allow our farmers and ranchers 
to better compete, boosting our exports. Previous trade agreements 
demonstrate benefits to American farmers and ranchers.
  U.S. agricultural exports to our NAFTA partners have increased $4 
billion since that agreement went into effect 8 years ago. Under the 
United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement, U.S. agricultural exports 
doubled. Canada is the No. 2 market for our agricultural exports, 
buying $7.6 billion in the year 2000. Under the North American Free 
Trade Agreement, our agricultural exports to Mexico have nearly 
doubled, making it our third largest agricultural market buying $6.5 
billion in the year 2000.
  U.S. pork producers credit the North American Free Trade Agreement 
with their 130-percent increase in market share in Mexico between 1994 
and the year 2000. The United States beef and veal exports to Canada 
increased 26 percent in volume between 1990 and 2000 and increased five 
fold with Mexico from 1993 to the year 2000. The sale of United States 
corn to Canada increased more than 127 percent in volume between 1990 
and 2000, and exports to Mexico increased by nearly 18 times between 
1993 and 2000.

  Mexico voluntarily chose to accelerate its market opening for corn 
under the North American Free Trade Agreement to provide lower cost 
food for its consumer. Canada imported 15 percent more soybeans from 
the United States between 1990 and 2000. Mexican imports of United 
States soybeans doubled from 1993 to the year 2000.
  I would also like to comment on the seriousness of defeating the Byrd 
(3447) amendment on the Congressional Oversight Group. The Byrd 
amendment will curtail the authorities on international trade within 
the Congress of the United States; those people who have been given 
authority, the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means, will be 
curtailed. It will curtail our oversight of these agreements. We need 
to work toward that. I am also asking my colleague, for the sake of 
maintaining the authority of an oversight of the Senate Finance 
Committee, that we defeat the Byrd amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will withhold for a unanimous consent 
request.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield.


                      Amendment No. 3450 Withdrawn

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Byrd, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment numbered 3450 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be recognized 
following Senator Dorgan, and that he be recognized for up to 45 
minutes, and that Senator Cantwell be recognized following that for 20 
minutes. If there is a Republican Senator who seeks recognition, that 
Senator would have the right to follow Senator Dorgan. We will 
alternate if the Republicans want to; if they do not, we have the order 
set up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 3470

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its 
immediate consideration, amendment No. 3470.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to make sure the unanimous consent 
agreement is clear. Following Senator Harkin, if a Republican wishes to 
speak, they will be able to do. Prior to that, the order is in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand a procedure is established 
that amendment No. 3470 will come up for a vote later in the afternoon 
before we have final passage on the measure before the Senate. I rise 
to speak for the allotted 15 minutes as arranged under a previous 
consent agreement.
  Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that I hope will be voted 
on favorably. I suggest it would help the underlying bill. I will 
certainly support the work that Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus on 
our side have done to bring this important bill to the floor. I have 
been supportive of the overarching concept and many of the details of 
the bill.
  I am proud to say our entire Louisiana delegation--both Senators, 
Senator Breaux and myself, as well as all seven Members of our House 
delegation--have been very pro trade, and for good reasons: Not only 
because we think it is important for our Nation but for our own State 
of Louisiana that has positioned itself historically as a great trading 
hub.
  Although there are some disadvantages in the short term, and there 
are some jobs and industries that may be temporarily negatively 
affected, the long-term trends for the State of Louisiana and, frankly, 
for this Nation are very positive.
  I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. I support their efforts 
to streamline some of our trade policies, recognizing there are 
legitimate concerns about environmental and labor issues. The 
underlying bill has addressed, if not perfectly--has attempted to 
address in good spirit and in good, strong rules and regulations--those 
efforts. This could be a continuing work in progress. We in Louisiana 
feel very strongly about that.
  The amendment is not an attempt to undermine or scuttle this grand 
compromise and great package. It is an attempt to perfect and modify it 
for a group of workers who have been hard hit by something that is not 
in line with this free trade bill; that is, when the President just a 
few months ago issued a 201 ruling to put tariffs on raw steel that 
comes into the United States--which I vigorously objected to; so did 
the senior Senator from Louisiana and many Senators--and what

[[Page S4755]]

has happened since that administrative decision to put this tariff in, 
in hopes of helping other areas of the Nation and other Senators and 
their States that produce this steel, States such as West Virginia, 
Kentucky, and Maryland.
  I can understand these efforts to try to build consensus. The bottom 
line is it has hurt our maritime industry. I will give you some facts 
and figures. My amendment seeks to simply expand the trade adjustment 
assistance for not only workers who might lose their jobs because they 
have either moved overseas or have lost their jobs because of a flood 
of imports, but also this small group of maritime workers, about 
38,000, for a limited period of time who were losing their jobs because 
of the lack of imports coming in because of this 20- to 30-percent 
tariff.
  Again, I disagreed with the President's decision. I continue to 
disagree with that decision. My amendment does not seek to overturn it. 
I am just trying to help workers who are directly affected by that 
decision in an effort to make the whole situation a bit more perfect 
for the workers from the steel-producing States we are trying to help, 
as well as to try to give some necessary and urgent relief to maritime 
workers who find themselves on the other side of that decision because 
they are losing their jobs because steel is not coming in to the port 
of New Orleans.
  We have lost tons and tons, in just a couple of months, of steel 
coils, steel plates and sheets, steel bars, tin plates, and stainless 
steel bars that are coming into the ports of Louisiana, primarily the 
ports of New Orleans.
  We are not the only port that has been hurt very badly. The Port of 
Houston, the ports of the Great Lakes--we have ports all over the 
Nation, so 38,000 maritime workers literally are having to pick up an 
unemployment check instead of a paycheck because of the decision that 
was made.
  I tried to stop the decision but it was an administrative decision. 
My amendment does not seek to overturn it. My amendment only says, 
since it has been a consensus of the administration and Congress to 
help the steelworkers and special parts of our Nation, let's also, by 
this small amendment--that only costs $10 million and it sunsets after 
4-plus years--help the maritime workers.
  Under the current bill, they are not entitled to benefits because 
they are not being affected by a flood of imports. Their jobs are not 
necessarily being moved overseas. They just do not have the steel to 
bring on to the wharves because of this tariff.
  It does not cost us very much money in the scheme of things, but it 
will help thousands of workers in Louisiana, and many thousands of 
workers temporarily, until this situation can get worked out.
  That is the essence of my amendment. It is about 8,000 jobs that are 
at risk in New Orleans, a major port in our Nation. It is about 7,500 
jobs in the Port of Houston, the President's home State. It is about 
5,000 jobs, approximately, in California, in the Los Angeles Port; in 
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware--Mr. President, your own State--
combined, about 4,400 jobs that could be at risk; in the Great Lakes 
and Upper Mississippi, about 2,000 jobs. It is estimated for smaller 
ports around the Nation, it is about 10,000 jobs.
  Why? Because steel is one of the major imports, until this tariff was 
placed 2 months ago, that was coming into our Nation. While it caused 
great heartburn in the steel-producing areas of our State, it was 
actually very good business for our ports.
  Suffice it to say we cannot go back and overturn everything, but we 
certainly can vote today to help maritime workers directly affected by 
this decision. Again, it only costs us $10 million. It sunsets in 4-
plus years. It is a minor help that we can give to people who show up 
at the docks every morning and stay late almost every day. They have 
children to send to college. They have mortgages on their houses. They 
have other bills and responsibilities, maybe an elderly person who is 
at home. These are hard-working Americans and because of action taken 
in Washington they have to now pick up an unemployment check instead of 
a paycheck.
  These are not welfare recipients; these are people who have worked 
10, 15, 25, 30 years at what I would consider--as would most 
everybody--hard labor.
  The Presiding Officer is familiar with this picture because he comes 
from a port State. This is a New Orleans dock but it could be anyplace 
in America where you have stevedors and longshoremen loading and 
unloading ships. This is one of the great benefits of trade because 
these, in many cases, are unionized jobs, very high-paying jobs with a 
lot of protection for these workers. This is dangerous business. This 
goes on in America every day.
  There are thousands and thousands of these workers. What you will not 
see in this picture is a welfare recipient. What you see is a worker, 
many years working on the docks. Because of this tariff and the bill we 
are discussing, a lot of these guys cannot pick up a paycheck--or women 
are now working on the docks. My amendment seeks to give them some 
small relief--not upset the bill, not turn the compromise on its head, 
but to give us some relief.

  I hope when we have an opportunity to vote later this afternoon we 
will get a good, bipartisan vote on this small amendment that will help 
bring us some relief.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has just under 5 minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. If I could, I would like to speak for a minute about 
another problem that has arisen because of this 30-percent tariff on 
steel that is not related to my amendment. While I have a minute, I 
wish to speak about our fabrication industry.
  Senators are now very familiar with me coming to the floor to try to 
explain the importance of the oil and gas industry to our Nation. We 
talked a lot about this in our energy debate, but I need to make this 
point today on this trade bill.
  This tariff is very hurtful to the maritime workers who I am trying 
to help in a very modest, but meaningful way so they can qualify and 
get their TAA benefits under this trade bill. I also want to bring to 
the attention of this body--not that I have a solution for it because I 
cannot figure out an amendment that would actually help this; if I 
could I would offer it--what a great harm this tariff has also brought 
to a great industry in south Louisiana; that is, in the manufacturing 
business, using a lot of steel to help build our boats and platforms 
and equipment that help us get oil and gas safely out of the ground in 
the gulf and bring it to the shore to try to help light up this 
beautiful Chamber and everybody in New York and California and Illinois 
and in Louisiana--the whole country.
  We have a very vibrant fabrication industry, as you can imagine, with 
industries such as McDermott Industries and Gulf Island Fabricators. 
These are large fabricators. I am here to say, after contacting many of 
them over the last several months, that some of them will absolutely go 
out of business and we are then going to lose hundreds of jobs, if not 
thousands, in south Louisiana, for the simple reason that because of 
the cheaper steel that they were importing from other places in the 
world, bringing it to Louisiana through the mighty Gulf of Mexico or 
other large bodies of water to south Louisiana to build these great 
platforms, we cannot now compete against the same sort of manufacturing 
in places all over the world.
  Our delegation that is voting for trade--and we are happy to vote for 
the trade bill--has been caught in crosswinds, you might say, because 
of an administrative decision about trade. As a result, we are losing 
not only jobs in our maritime industry, which this trade bill should be 
helping to protect, but also we are getting hurt because of our lack of 
ability now to compete with other manufacturers in other parts of the 
Nation to get our oil and gas out of the ground.
  Now we are in a situation of having fabrication done offshore to 
float these tremendous platforms and rigs into the gulf. Our workers do 
not get the benefit of these jobs. Our oil and gas is taken out of our 
ground, right off of our shore, and 100 percent of the proceeds of the 
taxes paid come to the Federal Government. So Louisianians don't get 
the taxes from the royalties, we don't get the jobs making the 
platforms, we get beat up constantly because we are producing oil and 
gas, and my maritime workers have to pick up an unemployment check 
instead of a paycheck.

[[Page S4756]]

  If I sound as if I am complaining a little bit, I mean to try to lay 
out this problem. Again, I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. I 
support the trade bill, but I ask them for their assistance in helping 
a few thousand maritime workers who are not being hard hit by the trade 
bill they are recommending, which I support, but they are being hard 
hit because of an administration decision that is keeping imports down, 
therefore putting maritime workers out of business.
  When I can meet with Senator Breaux and get a solution for our 
fabricators, I will most certainly be bringing up that amendment, 
though not to this bill. But I will get as much relief as I can for 
good industries, good companies that have produced good jobs, 
industries that are going to be hurt, and I will ask the President as 
well as the leadership in the House and the Senate, both Democrats and 
Republicans, to come up with some potential solution--cost effective 
for the taxpayer--to our problem in Louisiana.
  People in Louisiana deserve a fair share and an opportunity to work 
hard.
  I yield any remaining time.


                           Amendment No. 3461

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I rise to discuss amendment No. 3461 which was 
offered on my behalf, and on behalf of Senator Dodd, Senator Stabenow, 
and others by Senator Reid on Monday and set aside. It is my 
expectation this amendment will be voted on at the expiration of the 30 
hours, as required by cloture. But I wanted to make sure I had an 
opportunity to discuss the merits of this and the importance of this, 
which I consider quite significant.
  I offer this amendment to protect the role of Congress and elected 
State and local officials in determining the nature and scope of 
significant public services. It is one thing for Congress to sacrifice 
its own prerogatives in the development of trade policy, as we will 
likely do today with the passage of trade promotion authority; however, 
in my view, it goes much too far to delegate constitutional 
responsibilities of elected officials when it comes to determining what 
are public services and what significant public services should be 
managed in the public sector.
  My amendment stands for the simple proposition that trade agreements 
should not be used to privatize public services--public services duly 
directed by constitutionally authorized actors of our Nation's 
democratic processes. Specifically, the amendment would establish as a 
principal negotiating objective that trade agreements should not 
include a commitment by the United States to privatize significant 
public services such as national security, Social Security, public 
health and safety, and education.
  It is very simple. Before I discuss the details of my amendment, let 
me say that I agree with the objectives of the sponsors of the 
underlying bill that we should seek ways to expand trade in services. I 
know firsthand that this objective can create jobs and economic 
benefit. In fact, I spent the better part of 30 years of my life 
building an international service business in banking and understand 
the need for barriers to be broken down. There are many that limit the 
expansion of American enterprise abroad.
  It is also true that the American service sector is and will continue 
to be a vital part of our economy. It is one that is growing 
substantially. It is a substantial part of our international activity.
  In my view, we need to aggressively foster and promote that growth. 
It promises long-term benefits for all Americans.
  That means we should be looking for ways to open accounts. I commend 
those efforts as a part of this bill.
  Having said that, while there are many potential benefits to forging 
trade agreements designed to increase trade and services, there are 
also risks. That is what my amendment is about.
  One of the risks is that those agreements will be misused, either 
directly or through unintended implementation requirements.
  My amendment is designed to reduce that risk so that trade agreements 
will do what they are supposed to do and won't be used in a particular 
way: the risk that they will commit the United States to privatizing 
key public services outside of legally constituted constitutional 
processes.
  Some of my colleagues may well be unaware that such a risk exists. 
After all, trade agreements are supposed to be about promoting economic 
activity. They weren't conceived to overrule democratic processes and 
decisions about the provision of essential public services--things such 
as protecting our airports and airline security, things that we have 
chosen in the democratic process to move forward in the public arena.
  Yet trade agreements can do just that. There is ample reason to be 
concerned that privatization of significant public services could well 
be on the table in future negotiations.
  In fact, right now negotiations are already underway in the process 
of establishing new agreements with respect to trade and services. 
Those negotiations may well lead to agreements under which services 
traditionally administered by Federal, State, and local governments 
would be on the chopping block.
  Under such agreements, foreign investors might be able to challenge 
public policies that provide certain services through government 
entities. Such foreign interests could argue that these policies 
discriminate against them and represent an unlawful trade barrier. In 
fact, some international agreements are already being interpreted that 
way, and others are being designed for that purpose.
  Consider what is happening in bilateral negotiations between the 
United States and Chile.
  In 1981, Chile decided to privatize its public pension system; that 
is, its equivalent of Social Security. Under the privatized system, 
Chilean workers are now required to invest their pension dollars with 
private financial institutions. Unfortunately, Chile's experience with 
the privatization of Social Security has, in many respects, proved 
problematic. Many Chilean workers have seen the value of their 
investments collapse. And many Chilean political leaders now believe 
the only way to protect the retirement security of Chilean families is 
to return to the earlier public system based on guaranteed benefits--
more like we have in the United States.
  U.S. negotiators are encouraging Chile to keep their system 
privatized. As a result, the financial security of Chilean retirees and 
their national retirement policy may depend on international trade 
negotiations rather than the political democratic processes reflecting 
the wishes of the Chilean people.

  Think about that for a moment and consider how Americans would feel 
if trade negotiations ended up deciding the fate of Social Security in 
America. Imagine trade negotiators setting that investment policy for 
the Social Security Administration. What if foreign interests were 
demanding that the United States open up our Social Security system to 
foreign financial firms or mandate privatization outside the democratic 
process? Imagine that Chilean, Russian, or German negotiators argued 
that it was a restraint of trade for Social Security to limit its 
investments to U.S Government securities rather than opening up the 
system to privatized accounts.
  I speak as one who strongly opposes that move with the American 
system privatizing Social Security. It would lead to a deep cut in 
guaranteed benefits and reduce the financial security of American 
seniors. But I think the most important issue as it relates to this 
debate, regardless of your views on privatization, is that Americans 
would be outraged if that were accomplished through trade negotiations 
as opposed to a debate on the floor of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives and a discussion with the American people.
  The future of Social Security is too important to be decided by 
anyone other than the American people.
  Social Security is not the only area of public service provision that 
concerns me. Let's take a look at another example a little less 
dramatic.
  The European Union has now proposed that the United States make new 
commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services to allow 
foreign firms to gain greater access to the U.S. water services market.
  Many municipalities across the United States have long felt that the 
provision of water services is an important governmental 
responsibility.

[[Page S4757]]

Some of the localities in New Jersey that I represent have chosen to 
have it administered by private companies. Others have chosen to retain 
the nature of a public provision of water services.
  The point is that the people have spoken. Should municipalities 
privatize their water supplies? I am not sure. I am certainly not 
convinced that one answer is appropriate for all situations. But one 
thing I am sure about is that these decisions should be made by local 
elected officials who understand local circumstances and local values, 
and who are accountable to the local taxpayers and local voters. These 
decisions to privatize should not be dictated by unelected, distant 
trade bureaucrats.

  Let me give another example. This involves a company that has been in 
the news lately, a company named Enron.
  The Government of Argentina contracted with a division of Enron to 
provide water and sewer services in Buenos Aires. Enron did not do such 
a good job, to put it mildly. For a while, the water provided was 
contaminated by toxic bacteria. As a result, some 500,000 people were 
told not to drink the water for well over a month.
  In the end, the Argentinian Government canceled its contract with 
Enron. Now Enron is suing, under trade agreements, that there is a 
basis for a $550 million settlement for them against the Argentinian 
people because they did a bad job.
  I am telling my colleagues, this is an important issue. The provision 
of public services is a decision which our democratic processes should 
be deciding. This matter should be decided by democratically elected 
governments, not unelected trade bureaucrats.
  There is a long list of public services that could well be privatized 
and put up for bid by foreign companies. These include everything from 
health services for veterans, to State colleges and universities, to 
immigration control, to afterschool programs, to police officers. All 
of these could be threatened by a trade agreement, and a lot of people 
are worried about that.
  That is why I want this amendment to be seriously considered by my 
colleagues on the Senate floor, really to establish a trade objective.
  Madam President, I ask, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair.
  The American Public Health Association is concerned about the 
privatization of some parts of the Medicare Program and medical 
services for the poor. The American Council on Education and the 
Council for Higher Education Accreditation have voiced deep concerns 
about the GATT negotiations. As they said in a statement, higher 
education is supposed to serve the public interest and should not be a 
commodity.
  Yet the threat posed to education by privatization through trade 
agreements is very real. Under some prospective trade rules, States 
could be barred from subsidizing State universities, using the argument 
that such subsidies put private universities at a competitive 
disadvantage. I do not think that is what the American people want 
trade negotiations to accomplish. They do not want unelected trade 
bureaucrats setting our policy with regard to public services.
  Let me return to the explanation of the amendment. The amendment is 
very simple and states:

       A principal negotiating objective of the United States is 
     to ensure that trade agreements do not [do not] include a 
     commitment by the United States to privatize significant 
     public services, including services related to (i) national 
     security; (ii) Social Security; (iii) public health and 
     safety; and (iv) education.

  It then defines the term ``privatize'' to mean:

       . . . the transfer of responsibility for, or administration 
     of, a government function from a government entity to a 
     private entity.

  And that is it. That is the entire amendment.
  As it should be clear from its language, the premise of the amendment 
is that there are some types of public services that are so important 
that decisions about them should be made democratically and should not 
be delegated to an international body. Our amendment highlights, in 
particular, those four areas. There may well be others.

  There may be some who would argue we ought to privatize some parts of 
our national security system, such as those who objected when Congress 
recently federalized our airport security system. I disagree. But, 
again, we ought to have that argument here on the floor of the Senate--
democratically chosen processes, constitutionally established.
  You could say that about many other types of issues.
  Trade negotiators should not privatize and preempt the decisionmaking 
of Congress and the President. This amendment is less about 
privatization than it is about democracy. It is one thing to enter into 
international agreements, promote private investment, even if that 
means limiting our congressional prerogatives, but it is an entirely 
different matter to tie our own hands in deciding upon important public 
services, which go to the heart of what government is about in the 
first place.
  I appreciate this opportunity to speak on this important, relevant, 
and germane amendment. In my mind, this bill already delegates too much 
congressional responsibility and authority. I hope my colleagues will 
support this amendment and protect our right to make a democratic 
choice about what the public services are that are privatized and that 
as we move forward we make those decisions through the debate process 
and discussion with the American people, not through trade 
negotiations, not through bureaucrats, who are unelected officials.
  So that is what the amendment is about. I believe strongly that this 
is an amendment my colleagues should support, and I hope they will.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, Senator Harkin has agreed to yield 5 
minutes to me. I know Senator Dorgan is next on the list. He has agreed 
to let me come in at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I believe, by unanimous consent, I was 
to have been recognized following the presentation by Senator Corzine. 
If that is the case--I believe it is the case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, provided I am recognized following his presentation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. SPECTER are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, it is quite clear to me from the cloture 
vote yesterday that the Senate is going to pass trade promotion 
authority.
  I think it is a shame that we have not had a more thoughtful debate 
on this issue. So I would like to take this opportunity to describe why 
this issue is and will continue to be controversial.
  Trade promotion authority is a euphemism for fast track. Fast track 
is just what the name implies--a process that involves a rush to 
judgment. It's like fast food, implying a lack of preparation, a quick 
and easy meal that in the end turns out to be bad for you. Fast track 
trade authority allows the Administration to go negotiate a trade 
agreement, and bring it back to the Senate without the ability of any 
Member to offer a single amendment.
  Article I, section 8 of the Constitution states that the Congress 
shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That is 
what was written in Philadelphia one hot summer with George Washington 
sitting in the presiding chair, Ben Franklin over to his left, and 
Mason, and Madison. They decided Congress shall have the power to 
regulate commerce with foreign nations--not the trade ambassador, not 
the President, but the Congress.
  The Congress has decided in recent years that to delegate this 
constitutional responsibility to trade negotiators. These negotiators 
go to places like Doha, Qatar, and negotiate agreements in secret. They 
bring these

[[Page S4758]]

agreements back to Congress, and say: Here is the agreement. Take it or 
leave it in total; no amendments because you are not allowed to offer 
any. That is what fast track is all about.
  If you want a good example of why fast track is a bad deal, you can 
look to our experience with the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Our 
trade negotiators went to Canada armed with fast track. They negotiated 
a trade agreement with Canada, and developed a secret side agreement 
which they disclosed only 2 years later to the Congress. That side 
agreement effectively traded away the interests of America's family 
farmers. Our farmers have been hurt badly as a result of it. We 
couldn't do a thing about it because when that agreement came back to 
the Congress, no one was able to offer one single amendment.
  I voted against the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Had I been able 
to offer an amendment, I might have been able to fix it. The family 
farmers who have been victimized by this agreement might not have been 
hurt nearly as badly. But no amendments were in order. No one in 
Congress could offer any amendment at any time. That is what fast track 
is about.

  Since we are debating trade and our trade policy, I want to use a 
chart to show what has happened in trade. My colleagues stood up 
yesterday and said: You need to understand how important this is to 
America. You need to understand all the new jobs we are creating with 
these trade agreements. Well, count me in as somebody who supports 
trade. I am big for trade. Expanded trade is terrific. The more the 
better but only as long as it is fair. If it is not fair, our country 
should have the backbone to stand up and say, no, the trade we demand 
and expect is reciprocal trade, fair trade.
  Fast track trade agreements have created runaway trade deficits. Here 
is what happens on the trade deficits. From 1991 to 2000, our trade 
deficit has gone from $65 billion to $436 billion. Our country suffered 
a recession in 2001, so the deficit declined just a bit last year, but 
the trend is clear.
  The fact is, this is by far the highest trade deficit in human 
history. Every single day, 7 days a week, our country buys more than $1 
billion in goods from abroad in excess of what we are able to sell 
abroad--over $1 billion a day every single day, racked up as a deficit.
  I ask those who support this fast track free trade strategy, do you 
think this works? Where did you pick up your economics? Was there some 
textbook I missed along the way that makes you think that this trend is 
a favorable one? I don't think so. This is not working. This is a 
failure. This is a massive failure. Our trade strategy is drowning 
America in red ink. Yet we have Senators coming to the floor saying: 
Give us more of this.
  Where is this red ink coming from? Prior to negotiating an agreement 
with Mexico, we had a small trade surplus with Mexico. We have turned 
that now into a huge deficit. Prior to negotiating a trade agreement 
with Canada, we had a modest deficit. Now we have turned that into a 
very large deficit. We have a very large and growing trade deficit with 
China, $70 billion a year plus--and a very large, abiding, growing 
trade deficit with Japan.
  What does all that mean in terms of real people? We have Senators who 
come here and argue theory. They are out of touch with working people. 
When you work in the Congress, you take a shower in the morning and 
then put on a dark suit. What we are doing in trade policy is dealing 
with the jobs of the people who work hard all day and then have to 
shower at the end of the workday. It is their jobs that are sent 
elsewhere as a result of this legislation.
  I gave a speech in the Senate some years ago. I told the stories of 
some real folks who have been affected by unfair trade. The other day 
we had a press conference on the steps of the Senate, with working men 
and women that continue to lose their jobs. The stories don't change.
  The Levi corporation decided they can't make Levis in the United 
States anymore. It is cheaper to make Levis in countries where you can 
pay people 50 cents an hour. Or Fruit of the Loom, making shorts, men's 
shorts, they just ship those to a plant where they can pay somebody 40 
cents an hour.
  It is one thing to lose your shirt, another to lose your shorts. OK, 
it's a bad joke, and this is no laughing matter. Not when you have 
companies decide to move their plants to where they can pay people 40 
cents an hour or, better yet, pay them 24 cents an hour. You know we 
have products on our store shelves made by 12-year-old kids who worked 
12 hours a day and were paid 12 cents an hour. We all know that.
  We have fought for over a century for the right of workers to 
organize, the right to work in a safe workplace, the right to say that 
it is wrong to put children who are 10 and 12 years old down in coal 
mines or in industrial plants, the right to a reasonable minimum wage. 
Those who support fast track ultimately are allowing corporations to 
pole vault over all of that, and to move jobs overseas where they don't 
have to be bothered with decent wages and working conditions. This is 
ultimately just about corporate profits.
  We have 8.6 million people today who are looking for work. If you are 
one of those people, your personal unemployment number is 100 percent. 
You, at some point, had to come home and tell your wife and your 
children: I am sorry, I lost my job and I don't know what I am going to 
do next.
  The Economic Policy Institute has calculated that, as a result of the 
most recent trade agreements--Canada, NAFTA, and the WTO--roughly 3 
million jobs have been lost in this country. So when you have 8.6 
million people out of work, and 3 million of them have been displaced 
by trade, should we be diving headfirst into new trade agreements?
  When NAFTA was negotiated, we were told that Mexico would specialize 
in low-wage and low-skilled jobs, and that those products would benefit 
U.S. consumers. That may have happened to some extent, but we have lost 
a lot of good jobs for working people in this country. The three 
largest imports into this country from Mexico are automobiles, 
automobile parts, and electronics. They are all jobs of high-skilled 
workers with high-skill wages that were displaced in this country.
  Borg Warner had a transmission plant employing 800 people in Muncie, 
IN. The jobs paid $17 an hour. Good jobs. Those jobs don't exist there 
anymore. They are in Mexico. Atlas Crankshaft, owned by Cummings 
Engine, literally put its manufacturing plant on trucks and moved it 
from Ohio to Mexico. So those 200 jobs have gone south, looking for 
lower wages. The Abbott Cooperation, which manufactures wires harnesses 
for Whirlpool Appliances, and their 117 jobs, were sent to Mexico. A 
metals plant in Warren, MI, closed down. They put their equipment on 
trucks and moved to Mexico--26 jobs gone south.
  Some say: You know, Senator Dorgan, that is life. That is the way the 
new economy is. That is the way this world works. It is a new global 
economy and you don't understand it. You are one of these xenophobic 
isolationists who can't see over the horizon and cannot understand the 
new economic day.
  Well, I am certainly not suggesting that we retract on the global 
economy. That is a fact of life; it is here and now. The question for 
this Congress is, What are the rules? The rules have not kept pace with 
globalization. As these plants close and move jobs to Mexico, or 
Indonesia, or Sri Lanka, or other countries around the world, shouldn't 
Congress begin debating what the rules are of free trade and 
globalization? Because the rules have not kept pace with the times.
  Those who want to take advantage of having no rules are those who 
want to make profits by deciding they want to trade American jobs, and 
all the restrictions that come with it, for jobs elsewhere for pennies 
an hour, where they don't have to worry about polluting the water and 
air, and they can do it with impunity. They can hire as many kids as 
they want. They don't have to worry about a safe workplace because 
there are no rules and regulations on any of that.
  The global economy has moved forward without sufficient rules. This 
Senate, instead of debating fast track, ought to be debating the rules 
of globalization. We are not allowed to do that. Do you know why? Those 
making big profits out of the existing system don't want us to do that. 
That is the last thing they want us to talk about.

  It would be nice if the proponents of fast track would take the time 
to talk

[[Page S4759]]

to a few of the many people whose jobs were determined to be relatively 
unimportant in the scheme of international trade. I am not talking 
about people who make buggy whips--a product for which we have no 
additional need. I am talking about people who made decent wages 
working real jobs in factories that produce good products.
  When the rules are not fair, it is up to the Senate to stand up for 
American workers. They will not do it and amendment after amendment on 
this so called fast-track bill has gone down. Why is that? Because this 
was like a big truck with a tarp over it, buttoned up long ago and 
driving through this Chamber, like the trucks that will come in after 
June 30 from Mexico.
  Incidentally, as a result of NAFTA and some flawed analysis, this 
Administration is set on June 30 to allow Mexican trucks to enter our 
country for long hauls. Everyone here knows there isn't a ghost of a 
chance that this is going to be safe for American drivers. Inspection 
sites don't exist. The standards for Mexican long-haul trucks are not 
enforced. I ask you to look at investigative reports on it and ask 
yourself: Do you want your family driving next to a long-haul truck 
that has been driven for 24 hours by somebody who doesn't have a 
logbook and hasn't had an adequate safety inspection? I guarantee that 
will happen here after June 30 of this year. Why? Because we are not 
able to debate these issues under fast track.
  The Senate is once again saying to our trade ambassador to go 
negotiate trade agreements in secret, and to forget about what the 
Senate might think. Our current trade ambassador, Bob Zoellick, is a 
man I personally like, bright as a whip. We disagree on some things and 
agree on some other things. But it is just plain wrong for the Senate 
to give this kind of authority away, and to abrogate its 
responsibility. And I hate to think of the likely consequences.
  Mr. Zoellick said this on November 26, 2001:

       In Doha, Qatar, antidumping laws in the U.S. could be 
     discussed as a new trade round gets underway.

  In effect, our trade ambassador has put our antidumping laws on the 
table to be traded away. We have already lost section 22, and section 
301 has been weakened, and now the trade ambassador is talking about 
giving away the laws that prohibit dumping in our marketplace and 
injuring our producers and workers. If we trade away our antidumping 
laws away, there will be no protection against unfair trade. None.
  When on Earth will this Congress learn? Have we not had enough 
experience with this nonsense? How high do our trade deficits have to 
go? If it doubles again, maybe then they will think there is a problem?
  We can make the case that a fiscal policy deficit is money we owe to 
ourselves. We cannot make that case with the trade deficit. This is 
money we owe to other countries. We will repay this someday with a 
lower standard of living in this country. That is inevitable.
  Our negotiators just keep handing us these bad trade agreements, and 
our trade deficits keep skyrocketing. Will Rogers once said that the 
United States of America has never lost a war and never won a 
conference. He surely must have been speaking of our trade negotiators 
because with United States-Canada, with NAFTA, with WTO, with GATT, our 
trade negotiators have taken 15 minutes and have wilted and folded 
under the onslaught of pressure from both corporations and other 
countries, and we end up with rules of trade that are fundamentally 
unfair to our workers, our farmers, and our businesses.
  There is no debate about that in this Chamber. There is a relentless 
chant of the type you find on street corners about free trade, free 
trade, fast track, new jobs, when all the evidence tells us that we 
have had a disastrous experience with trade. We have paved the road by 
which U.S. companies can seek a lower wage almost anywhere in the 
world.
  Did any of my colleagues see the story the other day in the 
Washington Post about the young woman who was working in a toy factory 
and died from sheer exhaustion? She had been working 16-hour days for 
two months without a day off.
  I have been in a number of countries with abysmal working conditions. 
We know there are a couple hundred million kids who are being employed 
around the world. Some are locked in garages, in basements.
  I held a hearing in Congress about child labor, and heard testimony 
about young kids in India making carpets. They had had their fingertips 
laced with gunpowder and set on fire so the burns would scar. Then when 
these young children in these large plants would stick themselves with 
needles while making carpets, it would not hurt, and they could keep on 
working. Do we want those products on the store shelves of Pittsburgh 
or Fargo or Los Angeles or Dallas? Is that free trade? Is that fair 
trade? Does anybody here care about that?
  Do my colleagues know how many people we have in the Department of 
Commerce working on enforcement of trade laws so we make sure these 
trade laws are fair? China, a country that has somewhere around a $70 
billion trade surplus with us, because they send us all their trinkets, 
trousers, shirts, and shoes, and we take them all. Madam President, do 
you know how many people are enforcing trade agreements with China? 
Fewer than 10. Fewer than 10 people. The same is true with Japan, with 
which we have a huge trade deficit.
  It is probably not unnoticed that I have a great deal of angst about 
the way these issues generally are handled. We do not have a thoughtful 
debate; we have a thoughtless debate. This is chanting about 
irrelevancies instead of talking about what makes this country strong.

  The economic engine in this country, in my judgment, is an economic 
engine that begins with working people and also businesses willing to 
invest their money to ask for a fair shake in international 
competition. We create these trade agreements with other countries that 
result in huge trade deficits, and we have Senators come to the Chamber 
and talk about how many new jobs they have created. It is total 
nonsense. They ought to be talking about the 3 million jobs they have 
lost, and then talk about a few of the names of the people who have 
lost their jobs.
  I guarantee there is not one Member of the Senate who is going to 
lose his job because of a bad trade agreement. There are going to be a 
lot of folks out there raising a family and trying very hard to make a 
good living who will be told: No, your job does not exist in Akron, OH, 
anymore. Your job is now going to Sri Lanka, and we are sorry, that is 
life, that is the global economy.
  It is inevitable now this President will be given fast-track 
authority. I did not believe we ought to give fast-track authority to 
President Clinton, and I do not believe we ought to give it to this 
President.
  What I say about fast track is this: Take 1, 2, 10, or 20 of the 
trade problems we already have from existing trade agreements. Try to 
fix those. Then come back and let's talk about new agreements.
  I will not vote for this fast track bill. I suspect many Members of 
the Senate will. They will button their coats tighter, stand up proudly 
and say how wonderful it is for this country, and not one of them will 
have his job moved to Sri Lanka, Mexico, or anywhere else. I guarantee 
working people who lose their jobs because of this will find precious 
little comfort by having trade adjustment assistance as part of it. 
Yes, I support that part of the trade package. But it is not a good 
substitute for good trade law, and everybody in this Chamber knows it.
  Madam President, I would like to take a couple more hours, but I need 
to step aside. We have other business to do. I hope at some point we 
will have a real debate on trade in the Senate. It is certainly not the 
leader's fault we have not had a real debate. The problem is the lack 
of substance of the underlying bill. We cannot have a debate about 
substance.
  I invite other Senators to spend a few hours talking about the 
reality of international trade. If anybody wants to do that with me, I 
will join him and talk about real numbers and the truth on trade.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. NICKLES. I have a brief question. I know my friend from Nevada 
wants to make a UC request. Getting

[[Page S4760]]

the tenor of the Senator's debate--interesting debate--he is critical 
of the NAFTA agreement, one of the three free trade agreements passed 
by the Senate, two of which passed almost unanimously--the Jordanian 
trade agreement and the free trade agreement with Israel. NAFTA was not 
quite as unanimous. But did the Senator vote in favor of those three 
free trade agreements?
  Mr. DORGAN. No, I did not vote in favor of NAFTA, I did not vote in 
favor of the U.S.-Canada agreement, and I did not vote in favor of 
GATT.
  Mr. NICKLES. Did the Senator vote in favor of the Israel or Jordan 
free trade agreements?
  Mr. DORGAN. I did. And it is ironic that the Senator who makes the 
point about the Jordan agreement voted to keep the Jordan agreement 
labor standards out of this fast-track legislation.
  I voted for the bilateral trade agreements that the Senator From 
Oklahoma mentioned, but I did not vote for NAFTA, I did not vote for 
United States-Canada Agreement, and I did not vote for GATT. Those 
agreements have led to huge deficits. These numbers do not represent 
success, not in North Dakota and not in Oklahoma. These growing massive 
deficits are choking our country. I would love it if the Senator from 
Oklahoma will join me sometime in a debate on trade on the floor of the 
Senate.
  It is hard to get people to agree to do that, but if the Senator from 
Oklahoma would, I would love to have the opportunity.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, is going to speak. 
First, I ask unanimous consent that following the previously ordered 
sequence of speakers, Senator Sarbanes be recognized to speak for up to 
15 minutes, and Senator Kennedy be recognized for up to 30 minutes, 
with the previous provision regarding Republican speakers remaining in 
effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. Did the Senator say Senator Sarbanes and then Senator 
Kennedy?
  Mr. REID. Yes, but a Republican can come in between if they care to.
  Mr. NICKLES. I believe Senator Kennedy may be speaking on a different 
nontrade issue.
  Mr. REID. If there is an objection, the rights of the Republicans are 
preserved.
  Mr. NICKLES. I would like to reserve some time for a Republican to be 
able to follow Senator Kennedy.
  Mr. REID. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator modify his request?
  Mr. REID. Yes, I will do that in the next one.
  Mr. NICKLES. Well, if Senator Kennedy is going to be speaking on 
minimum wage, I would like for a Republican, likewise, to have an 
opportunity to speak on that.
  Mr. REID. If that is the desire of the Senator, we have no problem 
with that. Following Senator Kennedy, that would be fine.
  Mr. NICKLES. For 15 minutes?
  Mr. REID. Fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________