[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16579-16581]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          INTERNATIONAL TRADE

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to speak about a 
different subject, international trade. I will do it briefly because I 
understand my colleague, Senator Byrd, wishes to address the Senate. I 
certainly do not want to disadvantage him. If my colleague, Senator 
Byrd, will indulge me for a few more minutes, I want to make a comment 
about international trade.
  Mr. BYRD. Please.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague, as always, is gracious, and 
I deeply appreciate that.
  Congress Daily today says:

       Vote on trade negotiating authority suffers another delay.

  This is a story about the House of Representatives deciding to delay 
a vote on what we normally call fast track. They have delayed it 
because the Speaker of the House says they need time to get all their 
``ducks in a row.''
  I simply point out to those who are working to get their ``ducks in a 
row'' in the House of Representatives to pass fast track trade 
authority, that when it comes to the Senate, there are not going to be 
ducks in a row to pass fast track trade authority for our President.
  I would not support it for President Clinton and I will not support 
it for this President, and I want to explain why. I believe a band of 
Senators who feel as passionately as I do about our trade policy 
believe it is not only undemocratic to cede to someone else the ability 
to go to negotiated trade agreements with the promise that no Senator 
has the opportunity to offer a change to that agreement when it comes 
to the floor of the Senate. But I

[[Page 16580]]

also want to explain why I think those who have negotiated our trade 
agreements are not entitled to be given a blank check for trade 
negotiation authority by this Congress.
  Let me give a couple of examples to describe why. Here is what has 
happened to our merchandise trade deficit. It has ballooned from $132 
billion in 1993 to $449 billion last year. It is exploding. We are 
exporting manufacturing jobs at a rapid pace, and this is a trade debt 
that we must repay in the future with a lower standard of living in the 
United States. This is serious. It is trouble and we must get it under 
control.
  We have had a trade deficit with Mexico. Let us look at what has 
happened with Mexico. In 1993, we passed the North American Free Trade 
Agreement. Before the agreement, we had small deficits with Mexico, $5 
billion, and then $2 billion or $3 billion. Then, a few years before 
the agreement, we had a surplus with Mexico.
  What has happened since NAFTA was passed? We are drowning in red ink 
with the country of Mexico.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes, of course, I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. What are those figures representing our drowning?
  Mr. DORGAN. Their the current accounts deficit. With Mexico alone, it 
is over $30 billion a year. In fact, our aggregate merchandise trade 
deficit is over a billion and a quarter a day, every single day. It is 
many trade partners including Japan, China, Canada, Mexico and Europe. 
It's a huge growing dangerous debt.
  How does all of this happen? Let me give a few examples. Vehicles in 
Korea. In 2000, Korea shipped 570,000 vehicles to the United States of 
America. How many vehicles did we produce and ship to Korea? Only 
1,700.
  Is it because we do not make automobiles? No, that is not the reason. 
It is because if Ford makes a car and ships it to Korea, by the time it 
gets through all of their taxes, tariffs and other obstructions, it 
costs thousands more than it ought to cost. Therefore the Koreans do 
not buy it.
  First of all, one has trouble getting it, but if they get it in the 
country they do not buy it because it is thousands more than it should 
be. So the result is our automobile trade with Korea is extremely 
unbalanced. They send us 570,000 vehicles a year and we send them 
1,700. That is vehicles to Korea.
  How about T-bone steak to Tokyo, beef to Japan? Do my colleagues know 
that every single pound of American beef we send to Japan has a 38.5 
percent tariff on it, every single pound? To buy a T-bone steak in 
Tokyo is very expensive. Do you know why? Because they restrict the 
amount of beef coming in. We reached a beef agreement with Japan and 
our negotiators celebrated it. Twelve years later we still have a 38.5 
percent tariff on every single pound of beef going to Japan. T-bones to 
Tokyo, that is unfair trade; cars from Korea. How about high-fructose 
corn syrup to Mexico? Here they levy the equivalent of a 43 percent to 
73 percent tariff on corn syrup, despite being in violation of NAFTA. 
Or how about durum wheat to this country from Canada? Fundamentally 
unfair trade. There are millions of bushels coming across in 18-wheel 
trucks. The Canadians have a monopoly that would be illegal in this 
country called the Canadian Wheat Board. They ship wheat to this 
country at secret prices. When we say to them, ``open up your 
records,'' they simply thumb their nose at us and say, ``We do not 
intend to shed one bit of light on this. We do not intend to share any 
data with you at all.'' That is the way trade is.
  So I say to those in the House who are getting their ducks in a row 
to pass fast track trade authority, ``Well, go ahead and get your ducks 
in a row. But you should understand that ducks are not going to be in a 
row when that gets to the U.S. Senate.''
  I did not believe President Clinton ought to have this authority, and 
he did not get it. I do not believe this President ought to have this 
authority, and, in my judgment, he is not going to get it.
  The first step, and I have said this to the Commerce Secretary: ``Do 
you want to talk about fast track? I will tell you what you ought to 
fast track. Why don't you put on the fast track a few trade 
solutions.'' I say to the trade negotiator and others, ``Get some good 
negotiators. Fit them with jerseys, just like we do with the Olympics. 
Make sure the jerseys have a big ``USA'' on the front so that 
occasionally our negotiators can look down at their chests and see who 
they are representing and for whom they are negotiating.'' Send them 
over to the negotiating table and say, ``Stand up for this country's 
interests.''
  Do not build walls and keep things out of here. But our negotiators 
need to say, ``We expect fair trade.'' We expect them to stand up for 
this country's interests. Stand up for the American worker. Stand up 
for American business. Stand up for American products. We are sick and 
tired of unfair trade bargains that put us in a sea of red ink and put 
our employees and businesses at a disadvantage.
  That is true with Japan. It is true with China. I have not spoken 
about China. I should, but out of respect for my colleague who is 
waiting to speak, I will do that at a later time.
  Japan, China, Korea, Canada, Mexico, Europe. This country is drowning 
in a sea of red ink, in international trade deficits, and it ought to 
stop. I will not be a part of a Senate that is going to try to give 
fast track authority to a President.
  There will be a group of Senators who believe, as I do, that it is 
worth the passion, energy, and time to see that the priority in this 
country, and the priority in trade policy, is not to grant fast track 
authority to the Administration so they can go off and negotiate new 
trade agreements. Rather, we need to get some people who know how to 
negotiate solutions to the problems in the old trade agreements.
  Let us fix the problems they have already created instead of running 
off and trying to create new trade agreements. This is especially true 
when we have this trade deficit that is becoming an albatross around 
the neck of our children. A trade deficit that will and must be repaid. 
One that must be repaid with a lower standard of living in this 
country. That is why it is important now to solve this problem. It will 
not be solved by more trade if it is unfair.
  I am for expanded trade. I am for more trade. I am for all the things 
that people want to do to engage around the world in commerce, but I 
demand on behalf of this country, and on behalf of American workers and 
businesses, that trade agreements be fair to America for a change.
  Trade agreements with Japan, China, and others have been negotiated 
in an incompetent way. You can put a blindfold on. It does not matter 
whether it is Republicans or Democrats in office.
  Will Rogers once said the United States of America has never lost a 
war and never won a conference. He certainly must have been thinking 
about our trade negotiators. We can do a whole lot better than that.
  My point very simply is, on fast track, get your ducks in the row in 
the House, but understand when it gets to the Senate it is not going 
any further. There are plenty of us who are going to see that fast 
track is not passed in the U.S. Senate.
  Yes, we are for trade, but we are for fair trade. It is time to 
insist on fair trade and get rid of these ballooning trade deficits.
  Let me thank my colleague, Senator Byrd, from West Virginia. He is, 
as is always the case, most gracious to allow me to continue beyond the 
time allotted.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield briefly?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. Sign me up. Sign me up as one of those who will stand with 
the Senator to defeat fast track. We have seen too many American jobs 
take a fast track out of this country. We have seen what happened to 
pottery in my State. We have seen what happened to glass, what happened 
to leather goods, what has happened to textiles, what is

[[Page 16581]]

happening to steel, what is happening to chemicals.
  I will be with my colleague. I am opposed to fast track. I am for 
free trade but fair trade.
  Next year will be my 50th year in Congress, and I see one 
administration after another, Republican and Democrat, go down this 
same fast track, and I am tired of it. I have been against it. I do not 
stand here today and propose we ought to deliberate on putting a duty 
on every toothbrush or every fiddle or fiddle string or every paint 
brush that comes into this country, but there are a few major questions 
that we should be allowed to debate and offer amendments on when that 
measure comes before the Senate. What's wrong with that? I wouldn't 
mind, half a dozen, six, three, but why should we go along with our 
eyes closed and continue to join in this fast track of American jobs 
and American industries across the seas?
  Getting our ducks in a row, we have become sitting ducks. These are 
the ducks that our forefathers gave us to put in a row. Section 8, 
article I, the U.S. Constitution:

       The Congress shall have Power to regulate Commerce with 
     foreign Nations, and among the several States * * *

  It doesn't say anything about getting our ducks in a row. It doesn't 
say anything about fast track. It doesn't say anything about binding 
and gagging ourselves when it comes to trade legislation. It says the 
Congress shall have power to regulate commerce.
  Let's exercise that power. Let's exercise our rights as Members of 
the Senate, elected by a free people. Count me, register me, make me a 
first lieutenant in the ranks. I am ready. I volunteer.
  I thank the Senator for his contributions. I thank him very much for 
his leadership on this issue.
  Is the Senate in a period for morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. Are there any limitations?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each Senator is restricted to 15 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to speak for not to exceed 45 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________