[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 69 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2736-S2739]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we will be dealing soon--I guess next
week--with trade promotion authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership
trade agreement, the TPP. Conventional wisdom is that trade agreements
are good. We should just move them forward. Let's have an expedited
fast-track process--a fast-track agreement with the TPA--and we will
get this done and it is going to work out well for the American people.
But in truth, I have to say, since I voted for every trade agreement,
one virtually every year since I have been here--except one--the data
doesn't give us much confidence that a loosely drawn or improperly
drawn agreement is going to help us. In fact, evidence indicates it is
not helping us. It is not helping the economy of the United States. It
is not helping growth. Some of these agreements have clearly
exacerbated our trade deficit.
So it is a remarkable thing, and we want to believe in trade, and I
do, but the United States has interests, our trading partners have
interests, and our trading partners are far more mercantile, far more
focused on increasing exports to foreign countries--to the biggest
market in the world, the United States--and far more focused on
blocking imports that would compete against locally manufactured
products than the United States has been producing.
Some say: Well, that is not a problem. The United States is smarter
in the long run. But I would say I am looking at this more carefully
now.
I voted for the Korea agreement. Our Korean allies are good people.
It is a great country. They achieved so much after the Korean war, and
we are proud of them. We have many positive relationships and a
fabulous Hyundai plant in my State. It hires thousands, and they have
suppliers that add thousands of jobs also.
What about that agreement? I supported it. I thought it was a good
agreement. It passed here by a substantial vote. But when you look at
it, it didn't work out as well as people said.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission--our own trade commission--
estimated that the reduction of Korean tariffs against our exports to
Korea and tariff rate quotas on goods alone would have added at least
$10 billion to annual exports to Korea. That is $10 billion. Well, last
year, three years after the agreement was passed, we didn't export $10
billion; we exported less than $1 billion to Korea--$0.8 billion. So
that is a very huge difference, while at the same time Korea's imports
to the United States have surged and the trade deficit the United
States had with Korea, which was already large, has almost doubled in
that time.
So I appreciate the complexity of the issue and want to talk about
it.
As we wrestle with how we continue with this situation with the TPP,
trade promotion authority, I ask my colleagues about some of the
questions we ought to consider. I know there is a goal to move this
thing forward fast rather than slow. The faster we get it done, the
fewer questions that get asked, and we have fewer problems. But that is
not our problem. That is not our duty.
I wrote President Obama a letter yesterday. I made some comments and
asked some questions that I believe are reasonable and fair questions
to ask before we vote on this agreement that he has been negotiating
but that, of course, hasn't completed the negotiations on. And, to the
extent to which it has been reduced to writing, which is only partial,
it is locked up in secret, and we are able to view it only privately.
We are not allowed to quote it or copy it to let the public know what
is in it.
I asked him:
You have asked Congress to approve fast-track legislation
(Trade Promotion Authority) that would allow international
trade and regulatory agreements to be expedited through
Congress for the next six years without amendment. Fast-
track, which proponents hope to adopt within days, would also
ensure that these agreements--none of which of have yet been
made public--could pass with a simple majority vote, rather
than the 67 votes applied to treaties or the 60 votes applied
to important legislative matters.
This is one of the largest international compacts in the
history of the United States. [It amounts to 40 percent of
global GDP.] Yet, this agreement will be kept a closely-
guarded secret until after Congress agrees to yield its
institutional powers and provide the administration with a
guaranteed ``fast-track'' to adoption.
In other words, we are going to agree in advance, before we see the
completed deal, before it is made public, to allow this agreement to
pass into effect without the ability to have any amendment to it or to
fully understand it.
I think that is a big ask of Congress. It has always been problematic
to use this fast-track procedure. I have voted for trade agreements
which were fast-tracked, I acknowledge, in the past, and maybe they
have helped us some.
But I do believe it is time for us to be a lot more careful today
with the trade agreements that we sign and ask a lot more rigorously
what impact it will have on working Americans, not just some capital
group in the canyons of Wall Street.
So I continued to write:
The U.S. ran a record $51.4 billion trade deficit in March.
That is a record first quarter, I believe. It was a six-year record
this year for the trade deficit. That means the amount we export is
vastly exceeded by the amount we import--$51.4 billion.
Economists tell us--and I don't think there is any dispute--that when
you are evaluating trade growth you have to subtract trade deficits
since they are a negative to growth. So our trade deficits are pulling
down growth in America. They are pulling down job creation. They are
pulling down wage growth. They are pulling down our economy.
I continue to quote:
This is especially concerning since, in 2011, assurances
were made from the Administration that the recent South Korea
free trade deal would ``increase exports of American goods by
$10 billion to $11 billion.'' But, in fact, American domestic
exports to Korea increased by only $0.8 billion, an increase
of 1.8 percent, while imports from Korea increased $12.6
billion, an increase of 22.5 percent.
So, in other words, imports from Korea to the United States increased
$12.6 billion. Our exports to them increased less than $1 billion.
Continuing:
Our trade deficit with Korea increased $11.8 billion
between 2011 and 2014, an increase of 80.4 percent, nearly
doubling in the three years since the deal was ratified.
And we were promised the other. We were promised it would enhance,
dramatically, exports. I continue:
Overall, we have already lost more than 2.1 million
manufacturing jobs to the Asian Pacific region since 2001.
Look, we know there are wage advantages in Asia, but wages are going
up
[[Page S2737]]
in a lot of Asian countries too. It is getting closer, and we have an
advantage on better management. We have advantages on better
infrastructure, and we have advantages on better energy prices. So this
is a huge loss to us. At some point we have to defend our American
working people's interest.
I write:
Former Nucor Steel Chairman Daniel DiMicco argues that we
have not been engaged in free trade but in ``unilateral trade
disarmament and enablement of foreign mercantilism.''
In other words, our agreements with trade have not overcome our
trading competitors, our trading partners' desire to maximize their
exports and minimize their imports from us. We have to be honest about
that; it is not theory. Simply eliminating tariffs does not solve the
problem. History tells us that.
So I continue to President Obama:
Due to the enormity of what is at stake, I believe it is
essential Congress have answers to the following questions
before any vote is scheduled on ``fast-track'' authority.
1. Regarding the ``Living Agreement": There is a ``living
agreement'' provision in TPP that allows the agreement to be
changed after adoption--in effect, vesting TPP countries with
a sweeping new form of global governance authority. TPP calls
this new global authority the ``Trans-Pacific Partnership
Commission.'' These measures are unprecedented.
We have not had anything like a living agreement in a trade agreement
before.
Continuing:
While I and other lawmakers have been able to view this
provision in secret [the chamber downstairs], I believe it
must be made public before any vote is scheduled on TPA, due
to the extraordinary implications.
I think it ought to be reviewed by independent scholars, lawyers,
trade experts, to help us decide just what we are doing when we allow,
apparently, the members who signed this agreement to meet at any point
in time to adjust the meaning of the agreement and the provisions of
the deal in order to adjust to changing circumstances. It is kind of
like what the Supreme Court has been doing to our Constitution.
2. Regarding trade deficits--
I asked this question, colleagues. Isn't it a fair question to ask,
when we are asked to vote for this fast track--
Will TPP increase or reduce our cumulative trade deficit
with TPP countries overall, and with Japan and Vietnam
specifically?
I want to know that. Don't you want to know whether or not we are
going to increase our deficit in trade with these member countries, in
particular Japan and Vietnam, where we can expect real problems in the
future, it seems to me?
By the way, by far the biggest trade partner in our economy is the
Japanese economy, in this agreement. Vietnam, with 100 million people,
has the potential to become a small China, as one expert said, and
really be, very much, a competitor to the textile industry, hurting--
most of all, one expert has said--Central American countries, such as
Honduras, El Salvador. Those countries that have been developing a
textile industry may find themselves undercut by Vietnam under this
agreement.
3. Regarding jobs and wages: Will TPP increase or reduce
the total number of manufacturing jobs in the United States
generally, and American auto-manufacturing jobs specifically,
accounting for jobs lost to increased imports? Will average
hourly wages for U.S. workers, including in the automobile
industry, go up or down and by how much?
Let's have a report on that. Shouldn't we know that?
4. Regarding China: Can TPP member countries add new
countries, including China, to the agreement without future
Congressional approval?
Some say it can't be done. Let's have a clear answer to that. At
first glance, it would appear that is possible.
5. Regarding foreign workers, TPA is a 6-year authority to
the President of the United States to negotiate trade deals.
He can submit them to the Congress, and these agreements can
be passed without amendment in a simple majority vote. So
this is a 6-year authority which concludes into the future.
We have had President Clinton, President Bush, President
whoever--Rubio, Cruz or whoever could be our President. So it
would have that authority.
Finally, I asked whether the administration can state unconditionally
that no agreement or Executive action, throughout the lifetime of TPA,
will alter the number, duration, availability, expiration enforcement,
rules or processing time of guest worker, business, visitor,
nonimmigrant or immigrant visas to the United States.
I think those are fair questions. I think we need to have answers to
those before we vote on TPA, but I can tell you what the American
people think. There have been some studies that say large numbers of
people tend to be right when they express an opinion on things.
This is Mr. Frank Luntz--I believe it is his poll. He asked this
question on international trade. ``Do free trade agreements the United
States has signed with other countries over the past 2 decades benefit
other countries or the United States?''
That is a simple question. He asked the American people: What do you
think? Do these agreements we have passed over the last 20 years--and I
voted for a lot of them in the last 18 years I have been here--are they
benefiting other countries or the United States? This is what the
American people say: Seventy percent say it benefits other countries.
Only 30 percent say it benefits the United States.
I think people are deeply skeptical about what we have been doing
regarding trade, and it is easy to dismiss their concerns and their
skepticism, to say they are just not knowledgeable and we know more and
that this movement of capital from New York, to Beijing, to Seoul, to
Japan, to Chile is just fine and wonderful and it is going to make your
life better. But the American people are not seeing that.
Another poll asked the question: What about the effect of the free-
trade agreements on wages the American people make.
This is the question:
Free trade agreements are treaties between countries
reducing trade barriers, such as reducing tariffs for
imported goods, agreeing to common standards and allowing
market access to foreign companies. Do you think the United
States making free trade agreements with other countries
increases or decreases the level of wages paid in the United
States or makes no difference?
They asked this of the American people. This is a YouGov poll.
Answer: Increases the level of wages paid in the United States--11
percent.
Now, we are told repeatedly: Oh, we need to sign these trade
agreements. It is going to make your wages go up. It is going to be
good for everybody. Don't we hear that? And I have hoped that would be
true, but only 11 percent of the American people think trade agreements
have moved their wages up.
What about the answer to the other part of that question. Decreases
the wages paid in the United States--34 percent.
So by more than a 3-to-1 majority the American people believe that
trade agreements over the last 20 years are decreasing the level of
wages in the United States rather than increasing them. Nineteen
percent say it makes no difference and one-third say they do not know.
We have to consider, colleagues, what is it that is happening. How is
it this might be happening? Because, in theory, comparative advantage
doctrine means that multiple countries can benefit from trade
agreements. I acknowledge that theory and believe it is fundamentally
valid, but let's take a tremendous trading partner such as Japan. We
have a tremendous trading relationship, where billions of dollars are
exchanging hands between our countries every year, and that will be
covered by this trade agreement--Japan. So what do we find? We find
that we have a 2.5-percent tariff on imported Japanese automobiles to
the United States and a 25-percent tariff on the import of light trucks
into the United States from Japan.
I didn't know the numbers were that high, but it is as a result of
various events that occurred over time where retaliation took place.
What about Japanese tariffs on automobiles going to Japan. There are
none. Japan does not have tariffs on automobiles going into Japan. Yet
we have a huge trade deficit with Japan. Why is this happening? It is
because of nontariff trade barriers, institutional matters, and the
like.
One of the biggest is that it is very difficult in Japan to get an
automobile dealership up and operating effectively. Hyundai has tried
to do it and failed. You can't get a distribution network for vehicles.
Maybe there is a cultural loyalty in Japan that makes people far
[[Page S2738]]
more likely to buy a Japanese automobile than a foreign automobile.
There are other factors.
So the TPP, as written, will do nothing that advances the export of
U.S. automobiles to Japan because those exports into Japan have been
reduced substantially through nontariff barriers. Got it? Those
nontariff barriers are not fixed in this agreement, but we are going to
be reducing ours.
One expert who negotiated with Japan for President Ronald Reagan,
Clyde Prestowitz, who opposes this agreement and who has written a book
on trade, says there is no doubt we are going to have an increase in
our trade deficit with Japan.
Now, look, I don't have a hard feeling about Japan. In fact, they are
fabulous allies. They are putting up money to help in mutual defense.
We have Honda and Toyota automobile companies in my home State of
Alabama, and I am proud of what they do. But we are not going to see an
increase in exports to Japan unless some things are changed other than
the tariff, and, in fact, they are not changing the tariff because it
is already at zero.
Well, maybe that is why the theories don't always work as well as
they are projected to work.
Mr. Dan Dimicco, whom I mentioned earlier, an outspoken commentator
on the issues relating to trade--lived with it and is the chairman
emeritus of Nucor Steel today--wrote a very valuable piece in Forbes
magazine back in December in which he discussed the trade deals and
problems that occurred. He goes through virtually every issue that is
raised in these discussions and presents a contrary view to
conventional wisdom.
I really think we have to listen to some of this. We can't just
blithely go by and pretend that the American people, by more than a 2-
to-1 margin, are all wrong about salaries and wages when, in fact, I
think the record will show that wages have dropped as these trading
agreements have increased. From 2009 until today, we have had a net
decline of family income of $3,000 in the United States. Wages are down
since the 1970s. The percentage of Americans actually with a job who
are in the working years is the lowest we have had since the 1970s.
Wages have declined basically since the year 2000. We have had
virtually no increase in wages since that time.
So what is it that is happening that is allowing the stock market to
go up and business profits to go up but wages are not? We have had a
decline in manufacturing. The numbers are unmistakable, and a large
part of this is foreign competition.
Colleagues, the time has come when we should enter into no trade
agreement--not one--in which we lose a single job in this country as a
result of unfair competition.
Mr. DiMicco goes on at length. I ask unanimous consent to have his
article printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Forbes, Dec. 16, 2014]
`Fast Track' To Nowhere: Congress Shouldn't Give Obama Power To Ram
Through TPP
(By Daniel DiMicco)
If the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade and global
governance agreement has any chance at passage, it will
require the usual alliance of Wall Street Democrats and Wall
Street Republicans. Disgruntled citizens voted to ``throw the
bums out'' because they were not delivering jobs and
prosperity. Yet there is a danger that President Obama and
the Republican leadership did not get the message.
The Obama administration may soon be enabled by some in the
GOP to pass the globalists' biggest wish: ``fast-track''
trade authority on the road to the massively misguided Trans-
Pacific Partnership.
It has made for titillating journalism to speculate on how
these strange bedfellows will overcome opposition from blue
collar Republicans and Democrats, and the fractiousness of
the current Congress, to collaborate on further gutting
America's productive supply chains through unilateral trade
disarmament and enablement of foreign mercantilism. The
kumbaya trade agreement cheerleader crowd has convinced
itself that 40 years of trade deficits don't matter, even as
the shrinkage of GDP growth has rendered the U.S. a dwindling
superpower teetering on the brink of second class economy
status.
Misunderstanding Trade
The left-right Wall Street alliance of TPP cheerleaders
relies upon a fundamental misunderstanding of trade, its role
in the world and its role in economic growth. National income
accounting makes it clear that gross domestic product is the
sum of four factors: consumption, investment, government
procurement and net trade (exports minus imports).
That's net trade--not gross trade. In other words, net
exports increase our economic size while net imports shrink
it. This is not a liberal plot, or a Tea Party plot, or a
protectionist plot. It is basic and uncontroversial economic
math that the TPP cheerleaders either don't understand or
don't want to.
In 2013, the U.S. economy amounted to $16.8 trillion.
Consumption was about 68% of GDP. Investment was about 16%.
Government procurement was about 19%. But net trade
subtracted about 3% from our economy (because imports
exceeded exports). This shrinkage is cumulative, compounding
year after year.
America is the picture of an unbalanced economy,
disproportionately relying upon unsustainable consumption.
Investment is too small, and should be 4% to 6% higher. Net
trade should add to our economy, or at least not subtract
from it. Consumption should increase in absolute terms, but
should be a smaller percentage of our economy.
Stated another way, we need to produce more of what we
consume. Right now we underproduce and engage in debt-driven
consumption. We live beyond our means. Investment is down
below sustainable levels. We are slouching towards Gomorrah.
We must produce more to employ people and grow wealth so that
we can export more (on a net basis), save more and engage in
income-driven consumption.
Thus, the battle is not between free traders and
protectionists, as the beltway think tanks and pundits often
assert. It is between misguided Gross Traders and factually
accurate Net Traders. It is not about opening or closing the
borders to trade, but balancing trade flows over time. The
seminal economist David Ricardo envisioned balanced trade
over time, as did the drafters of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
Free trade was crafted as an antidote to mercantilism, not
an enabler of it.
Markets versus Mercantilism
There is a twisted ideological school that promotes
unilateral American trade disarmament. The trade disarmament
advocates naively convince themselves that foreign
mercantilism is irrelevant and the basic trade principle of
reciprocity can be ignored. Big Government market
intervention by other countries is just fine even as Big
Government here is bad.
President Reagan gave a speech that established the
principle of ``free and fair trade with free and fair
traders.'' More specifically, he established the 3 R's:
Rules, Reciprocity and Results.
``Rules'' mean that the trade must be rules based and every
nation should follow them. ``Reciprocity'' meant that there
will be a reciprocal reduction in tariffs, quotas and other
barriers rather than one-sized reduction. ``Results,'' the
point forgotten most, meant that America must gain a net
benefit from trade arrangements rather than being taken
advantage of.
The Wall Street Republican and Democrat ``free traders''
are not pursuing free trade at all. They are practicing
``mercantilism enabling'' trade. They want a deal that says
``free trade'' on the front cover even as the actual text
incentivizes and enables scores of creative mercantilist
tactics.
Modern mercantilism is not tariffs or quotas. It is not
Smoot-Hawley. Foreign currency manipulation, via domestic
currency controls or government intervention in foreign
exchange markets, is a massive problem undertaken by many
countries, some of those countries are part of the TPP
negotiations. While the communist government in China is the
poster child for using competitive currency devaluation to
gain a trade advantage, South Korea, Japan and Singapore do
it as well. The WTO includes a provision prohibiting
countries from ``frustrating'' the intent of the agreement
with exchange rate actions. But that provision has been
ignored to the detriment of the global trading system, the
global monetary system and the US standard of living.
Tariff reductions are often replaced by increased
consumption taxes, which are charged at the border, in other
countries. After NAFTA, Mexico enacted a 15% value added tax
which is applied to all U.S. exports there. The border tax
replaced the Mexican tariff reductions. The Central American
Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) countries generally enacted a
new 12% consumption tax to replace their tariff reductions.
So American companies still pay similar tariff/tax amounts at
their border.
State-owned enterprises are modern forms of epic industrial
subsidization. Over 50% of Chinese industry is state owned.
Telecommunications, steel, shipbuilding, etc. are state-owned
enterprises. They receive free or low cost land, credit,
energy and other inputs. Production decisions are not driven
by market forces so much as by government bureaucrats.
Pricing decisions are made to undercut U.S. or global
competitors and gain market share rather than by supply and
demand.
A basic principle of trade agreements is that countries
should not engage in actions that ``nullify or impair'' the
benefits the contracting parties bargained for. But the U.S.
has not enforced those provisions, they are hard to enforce
in existing agreements,
[[Page S2739]]
and the TPP cheerleaders keep pushing new deals without
addressing the modern forms of mercantilism.
Name Calling as a Substitute for Constitutional Consistency
Deprived of past economic success to base their argument
upon, a recent Cato Institute article engages in grade school
name calling against those on the right and the left who
oppose fast-track trade authority and recycled trade deals
like the TPP. The attempt at character assassination by
association is an unfortunate substitute for real data.
Even as the economy suffers from over-financialization,
deindustrialization, debt-driven consumption and asset
bubbles, the Wall Street TPP cheerleaders advocate a solution
in more flawed trade and global governance deals. Never mind
that we now have the WTO and bilateral agreements with more
countries than ever. Never mind that they predicted an
economic nirvana that never materialized when promoting those
prior agreements.
The medicine didn't work. So the solution is to take more
medicine.
The Tea Party groups that oppose fast-track trade authority
do so for core constitutional reasons as well. Article I,
Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the
authority to conduct trade policy. Congress, in the past,
typically passed bills designating the countries to negotiate
with and mandated the goals. Congress chose the countries to
negotiate with, set goals, oversaw the negotiations, and did
not pre-approve the final product before it was negotiated or
concluded. The checks and balances system set up by our
Founding Fathers was very intentional in dividing authority
among the legislative, executive and judicial branches so the
mistakes or abuse of power in one branch could be checked by
another.
Today's fast-track trade authority not only suspends the
``regular order'' of Congress to approve an agreement, it
pre-approves a trade deal before it is even negotiated. The
so-called negotiating objectives in the fast-track bill are
merely for show. They are mere friendly congressional
suggestions that do not bind the executive branch and are
often ignored. Congress never verifies that the president
achieved the objectives.
A read of past fast-track legislation reveals many
``negotiating objectives'' that were neither attempted nor
achieved by the executive branch negotiators. Yet, the
president can and does sign the agreement before Congress
views or votes on it.
Then, the president writes implementing legislation, which
is Congress' job. Congress cannot, under fast track, amend
the implementing legislation or the agreement but instead has
only 45 days for committees to consider and vote, then 15
days for a floor vote. Only 20 hours of debate are allowed on
a complex international document that runs to thousands of
pages.
Modern fast track goes far deeper into Congress'
constitutional authority than mere tariffs and quotas. The
president becomes a super-Congress legislating through
diplomacy in domestic policy areas. He can and does negotiate
with other countries regarding immigration, financial
services, tax, food and product safety rules, domestic
procurement, labor standards and many other domestic issues.
The final agreement may overturn past acts of Congress or
include new standards previously considered but rejected by
Congress.
If and when the deal is approved by Congress, the new rules
are adjudicated by international tribunals that issue
decisions which penalize the U.S. if we do not comply. Future
Congresses are forever restricted from considering a wide
range of policy changes to benefit our citizens, barred by
global rules or the decisions of international tribunals.
The recent WTO ruling against American's country of origin
labeling for food laws is only the most recent example.
Americans did not think they agreed to a treaty that
prohibited them from identifying where their food comes from.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, it's an open question as
to whether a majority of economists or politicians would
support modern trade and global governance deals if they
actually read them. The debate becomes twisted into the low-
brow rhetoric of free trade versus protectionism. Or by
ideological name calling. Or by the identity politics of
``this group could be working with that group, which is a
very bad thing.''
America became great by becoming an economic superpower. We
innovated, we built supply chains based upon that innovation,
we employed and paid people well, we created wealth, we built
the first durable middle class in the world. That gave us
cash to not only improve our standard of living, but also to
build the world's dominant military. We thus became the sole
global superpower.
Modern fast-track legislation began with the Trade Act of
1974. We have had 40 years of trade deficits shrinking our
economy ever since. It has been a net detriment rather than a
net benefit. It is time to focus upon true free trade with
rules, reciprocity and results, while fighting the increasing
scourge of global mercantilism. We must seek balanced trade
flows over time rather than be condemned to serve as the
global importer of last resort.
It is also time to preserve our constitutional system of
checks and balances and refrain from giving more power to
global institutions that displace our legislative and
judicial branches.
Only then can America return to a more broadly shared
prosperity.
Mr. SESSIONS. He says:
It is time to focus upon true free trade with rules,
reciprocity and results, while fighting the increasing
scourge of global mercantilism. We must seek balanced trade
flows over time rather than be condemned to serve as the
global importer of last resort.
He also said:
It is also time to preserve our constitutional system of
checks and balances and refrain from giving more power to
global institutions that displace our legislative and
judicial branches.
I think that is good advice, too.
Again, what Mr. DiMicco says is that while we remove trade barriers
and open our markets to importing competition, our allies, even when
they reduce their tariff barriers, don't reduce other institutional
barriers.
They also utilize currency manipulation. This currency manipulation
can provide a far more substantial advantage in trade than even a
tariff does. Mr. Volcker--the former Federal Reserve Chairman under
President Reagan and widely regarded as having done a magnificent job--
said tariffs can be overcome in a matter of minutes by currency
manipulation. Europe has seen its currency drop over 20 percent. Korea
has moved its currency down. Japan has moved its down. China has
ensured its yuan remains at a level below where it should be on
economic terms. As a result, they have gained a trade advantage, and as
a result, they have decimated American industries, closed factories all
over this country when they wouldn't have closed if they had a fair
dollar-to-yuan currency relationship. They have been found to be
manipulating their currency year after year. The Treasury makes it
clear, but the Treasury has taken no action to do anything about it. As
a result, good American people have lost jobs, had their factories
closed and their towns and communities damaged economically by unfair
trade. We have enough trouble competing in the world market. We don't
need to have the unfair trade.
I thank the Chair for allowing me to share these remarks. I don't
pretend to know all the answers. I try to be supportive of trade. I
remain supportive of trade. But I think we need to listen to the
American people a little bit. I don't think their concerns are
unfounded. By a more than 2-to-1 margin, they say these trade
agreements have advantaged our competitors rather than us.
It is time for us to make sure that if we do a trade agreement or
trade promotion authority, the product that is going to be passed into
law and become a worldwide trade agreement serves the American people's
interests--somebody's interests other than some theoretician in a
university, somebody's interests other than some foreign capital,
somebody's interests other than the canyons of New York where capital
is moved all over the world. Somebody needs to be looking out for the
interests of the American people. We need to ask that question first.
I thank the Chair.
I yield the floor.
____________________