[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22805-22807]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                               FAST TRACK

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I stood in this place last Friday to warn 
Congress that we must not allow the administration to arrogate to 
itself the full authority to determine the trade policy

[[Page 22806]]

of the United States, that we must not be asleep at the wheel as the 
one-sided trade jalopy goes rumbling down the fast track--the fast 
track. There we go again.
  For what this Congress calls fast track, the administration uses the 
euphemistic term ``trade promotion authority.'' Trade promotion 
authority--it certainly has an innocent enough sound. It is a sound 
that is rather sweet to the ears--trade promotion authority. But lift 
up the cover of this euphemistic term, lift the cover, just peep a 
little under it, and you will find the real villain: fast track, fast-
track authority.
  So last Friday I stood in my place here and said to Congress that we 
must not allow the administration to arrogate to itself the authority 
to determine the trade policy of the United States, that we must not be 
asleep at the wheel ``as the one-sided trade jalopy'' goes rumbling 
down the fast track. I was referring, of course, as I say, to the 
administration's request, its wolf in sheep's clothing request for 
special authority to negotiate trade agreements that would not be 
subject to normal rules of debate and amendment.
  I was also referring to the penchants of Presidents, both Republican 
and Democrat, in these more recent years to offer our trading partners 
unilateral concessions in exchange for the mantle of global leadership. 
As Jackie Gleason used to say, ``How sweet it is''--to wear the mantle 
of global leadership.
  The news from Doha, Qatar, confirms my worst fears. According to the 
Wall Street Journal, our trade negotiator, Ambassador Robert Zoellick, 
``led the way in making extraordinary concessions to developing 
countries,'' including ``agreeing to renegotiate America's anti-dumping 
laws.''
  I quote a little further from the Wall Street Journal news story.

       U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Zoellick faced a stark choice when 
     he arrived in Doha, Qatar, last week: He could win either 
     fast-track negotiating authority from Congress or a new round 
     of trade talks.
       To get a World Trade Organization deal, Mr. Zoellick would 
     have to make concessions to poor countries that would so 
     infuriate Congress that lawmakers wouldn't grant fast-track 
     authority. To get fast track, which would allow President 
     Bush to negotiate trade deals that Congress could approve or 
     reject, but not amend, he would have to make concessions to 
     liberal Democrats that would so anger poorer countries that 
     they wouldn't open new trade talks.
       On Monday, Mr. Zoellick announced his decision to a group 
     of ministers and delegates at the convention center in Doha, 
     where the WTO was meeting. The U.S., he said, would cede to 
     their demands to allow negotiations on America's hated 
     antidumping laws, which punish other countries that ``dump'' 
     products on the U.S. market at below cost.
       Before going to Qatar, Mr. Zoellick said he was fed up with 
     Democrats' demands for more concessions on fast track. He 
     pointed to his decision to allow a big steel trade case to go 
     forward, which could temporarily shutter the U.S. market to 
     some foreign steel. He said his fast-track proposal also 
     addressed labor and environmental concerns of Democrats. ``At 
     some point, people are going to have to decide if they can 
     take yes for an answer,'' Mr. Zoellick said.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire story from the 
Wall Street Journal of November 16 be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1).
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, so you see Mr. Zoellick, according to the 
Wall Street Journal, ``led the way in making extraordinary concessions 
to developing countries,'' including ``agreeing to renegotiate 
America's anti-dumping laws.'' Among the big winners, according to the 
Journal, were foreign steel makers and big multinational manufacturers. 
The big losers? Guess. I will give you one guess. U.S. steel makers and 
auto makers are the big losers.
  Our trading partners, who often protect their home markets by turning 
a blind eye to anticompetitive practices by their big manufacturers, 
hypocritically call our trade laws ``protectionist,'' and they find 
allies here in the United States among those who claim for themselves 
the banner of ``free trade.'' Let us be clear: the American people 
demand that the fruits of their labor be able to compete without fear 
of foreign predation. They want trade that is both free and fair.
  Let us also clear away--once and for all--the cant about 
``protectionism.'' Our antidumping law is based on a very simple 
requirement for foreign manufacturers. What is it? Do not injure 
producers in our market by selling below cost or charging less here 
than you charge in your home market. The plain fact is that foreign 
producers of certain products, such as steel and autos and lumber, dump 
in America year after year after year, and put all of their efforts 
into weakening our antidumping laws. Their home governments, whose 
markets are much less open than ours, work fist-in-glove with these 
predators.
  Our countervailing duty law, which the Administration has also placed 
on the negotiating table, is no more protectionist than our antidumping 
law. The law is based on a very simple requirement for foreign 
governments: Do not seek trade advantages by subsidizing the production 
of merchandise that your companies sell in the United States. Hands 
off. If you do, we will apply an offsetting tax to the unfairly traded 
goods that come into our country.
  Why should we permit our trade laws to be eviscerated by foreign 
interests? What possible rationale could there be for putting our 
antidumping and countervailing duty laws on the negotiating table? Is 
it to further distort competition to the disadvantage of U.S. 
producers?
  Let me give you an example of what passes for a so-called 
``legitimate'' trade dispute in the eyes of many of our trading 
partners. In many countries, government-owned steel companies have been 
the beneficiaries of massive subsidization over a period of decades. 
Without these subsidies, the steel companies would simply not exist in 
those countries. They would be gone with the wind. After pouring 
billions of dollars into a government-owned company, the foreign 
government then sells it off for pennies on the dollar--pennies on the 
dollar, or pennies from heaven. The newly privatized company, which 
wants to sell its subsidized overcapacity in the United States, then 
has the audacity to claim a ``privatization exemption'' from U.S. 
countervailing duties. Mind you, there is nothing in any agreement to 
which we are a party that gives privatized companies such an exemption. 
Nevertheless, under current international rules, the United States must 
fight like the dickens to apply countervailing duties in these 
situations. What will happen after we put our trade laws on the 
negotiating table?
  In short, the United States must not capitulate, Mr. President, to 
these foreign predators. More to the point, Congress--the body which is 
closest to the people--must not cede its authority over foreign 
commerce to the Chief Executive.
  The Framers of the Constitution did not cede that authority to the 
Executive, no. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress 
the exclusive authority over such matters.
  Let's take a look at article I, section 8, of the Constitution, which 
I hold in my hand. What does it say? Section 8:

       The Congress shall have Power--

  It does not say the executive branch; it does not say the President 
of the United States; it does not say that vaunted title: The Commander 
in Chief--
  The Constitution says:

       The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce 
     with foreign Nations--

  Aha, there it is. There it is in black and white. Read it and run.

       The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce 
     with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with 
     the Indian Tribes. . . .

  Well, you say, Congress can delegate certain authority. Well, that is 
true. But can it delegate the authority given to the Congress by the 
Constitution to debate and amend? And that is what we do. That is what 
we do when we support something like fast track.
  So, Mr. President, the Constitution is what I have just read.
  Let the Constitution, our Nation's shining glory, be our guiding 
light. Let us demand that our trade negotiators take a strong stand for 
American jobs

[[Page 22807]]

and American values. All countries benefit from international trade, 
and all countries must share in the costs of constructing the framework 
of that trade.
  Now, as I have said many times on this floor--I ought not have to 
repeat it--I am not suggesting that Congress get involved in the 
minutiae of international trade agreements. I am not suggesting that we 
inject ourselves into each little teensy-weensy, itsy-bitsy tariff 
determination. Our trade laws, however, are not minutiae. They 
represent the sole hope for companies that are being picked apart by 
vulturous foreign trading practices.
  Communities across America, all across the land--the East, the West, 
the North, and the South--are waiting to see whether we are strong 
enough to stand up for their interests--their interests--the people's 
interests.
  They are waiting to see whether the United States will once more be 
duped by those whose unabashed--unabashed--motive is to gut the 
framework of fair trade. If we stand by the Constitution--if we stand 
by the Constitution--that magnificently balanced instrument of the 
people, by the people, and for the people, we will not fail our 
constituents. As well, we will herald a trade policy for the new 
millennium, a trade policy according to which we do not sacrifice hard-
working Americans at the altar, at the altar, at the ``Golden Calf,'' 
if you please, of nebulous foreign policy objectives, a trade policy 
that is based on the pursuit of mutual benefit among sovereign nations.
  Now, Mr. President, that is not protectionism. If it is, then I am 
for it. That is not protectionism. It is a policy based on the 
traditional principles of national sovereignty as well as the absolute 
respect of each law-abiding nation for every other such nation. It is a 
policy the American people expect, and it is one that we--the elected 
representatives of the people--have a constitutional duty to uphold.
  May God bless America. But in doing so, may God bless the 
Constitution of this Republic. Thank God for that Constitution. I hope 
the administration will read it over the Thanksgiving holiday. It might 
be well if we ourselves all read it again.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit I

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 16, 2001]

                           Politics & Policy

  Zoellick's Trade Concession Wins WTO Talks But Could Cost Bush Fast-
                            Track Authority

                 (By Helene Cooper and Shailagh Murray)

       Washington.--U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Zoellick faced a stark 
     choice when he arrived in Doha, Qatar, last week: He could 
     win either fast-track negotiating authority from Congress or 
     a new round of trade talks.
       To get a world Trade Organization deal, Mr. Zoellick, would 
     have to make concessions to poor countries that would so 
     infuriate Congress that lawmakers would't grant fast-track 
     authority. To get fast track, which would allow President 
     Bush to negotiate trade deals that Congress could approve or 
     reject, but not amend, he would have to make concessions to 
     liberal Democrats that would so anger poorer countries that 
     they wouldn't open new trade talks.
       On Monday, Mr. Zoellick announced his decision to a group 
     of ministers and delegates at the convention center in Doha, 
     where the WTO was meeting. The U.S., he said, would cede to 
     their demands to allow negotiations on America's hated 
     antidumping laws, which punish other countries that ``dump'' 
     products on the U.S. market at below cost.
       Bill Klinefelter, the United Steelworkers of America 
     representative who sent to Doha to keep Mr. Zoellick from 
     negotiating on U.S. antidumping laws, was furious. Mr. 
     Zoellick, he said, could ``kiss fast track goodbye. He's 
     never getting it now.''
       The irony is that without fast track, Mr. Zoellick won't be 
     able to conclude the trade talks launched at the WTO meeting. 
     Trade envoys hope to wrap us the talks in three years, though 
     few really believe they will finish that early.
       Thursday, lawmakers were still digesting the details of the 
     Doha agreement. Republicans praised it and said they still 
     plan to try to get fast track. House Speaker Dennis Hastert 
     (R., Ill.) said he still hopes to bring fast-track authority 
     to a vote the week after Thanksgiving. But there is little 
     chance of passage without some support from moderate 
     Democrats--and few were cheering.
       Mr. Zoellick's fast-track proposal ``was not tenable before 
     Doha, and it's even less tenable after Doha,'' said Rep 
     Sander Levin, (D., Mich.) the only lawmaker who attended the 
     WTO meeting.
       House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D., Mo.) told 
     reporters Mr. Zoellick's concessions were ``negative in terms 
     of getting agreement on'' fast track. ``They put on the table 
     for negotiation our antidumping laws,'' he said. ``We are in 
     the middle of a steel crisis now in terms of losing sales and 
     losing capacity in our steel system.''
       The U.S. steel industry is one of the biggest beneficiaries 
     of antidumping laws, so lawmakers from steel states don't 
     want to see those laws weakened. Mr. Zoellick's decision ``is 
     a stunning betrayal of America's workers,'' said Rep. Peter 
     Visclosky (D., Ind.) vice chairman of the Congressional Steel 
     Caucus. ``Putting our trade laws on the table flies in the 
     face of fair trade and totally disregards the expressed will 
     of Congress that our trade laws not be negotiated away.''
       Before going to Qatar, Mr. Zoellick said he was fed up with 
     Democrats' demands for more concessions on fast track. He 
     pointed to his decision to allow a big steel trade case to go 
     forward, which could temporarily shutter the U.S. market to 
     some foreign steel. He said his fast-track proposal also 
     addressed labor and environmental concerns of Democrats. ``At 
     some point, people are going to have to decide if they can 
     take yes for an answer,'' Mr. Zoellick said.
       Some moderate Democrats defended Mr. Zoellick's concessions 
     on steel and said they still hope to salvage fast track. 
     ``The challenge is making sure everyone understands the 
     provisions,'' said Rep. Calvin Dooley (D., Calif.).
       In Doha, Mr. Zoellick steadfastly protected America's 
     textile industry. He repeatedly turned down demands from 
     India and Pakistan that the U.S. import more clothing. That 
     decision was looking almost fortuitous, but it clearly won't 
     be enough to bring about converts on fast track: Burlington 
     Industries Inc., Greensboro, N.C., filed for Chapter 11 
     bankruptcy protection and blamed it on cheap imports. 
     Burlington Chief Executive George W. Henderson specifically 
     cited the U.S. government as a culprit, saying it used the 
     textile industry as a bargaining chip in international 
     relations.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________