[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23693-23696]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



ECONOMIC STIMULUS, A COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY POLICY, AND FAST TRACT TRADE 
                               AUTHORITY

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first of all, I listened to the remarks of 
my colleague from Utah and thought they were interesting remarks, on 
point, and I appreciate them.
  I have heard some comments from colleagues this morning who are 
repeating things we have heard previously in this Senate Chamber. I 
want to comment about a couple of them and then talk about a vote that 
is occurring in the other body late this week and on which we expect to 
vote in the Senate at some point. It is a vote on something called 
fast-track trade authority.
  We had some discussion earlier today in the Senate about, the 
stimulus package referring, of course, to the package of legislation 
that would try to provide some lift to this country's economy. The 
question was asked: Where is the stimulus bill?
  The answer is very simple. The piece of legislation designed to try 
to stimulate this economy was brought to the floor of the Senate, and 
then the Republicans decided to make a point of order against it, which 
they did, and they took it from Senate consideration.
  A point of order exists against the bill that Senator Daschle brought 
to the floor of the Senate. It would exist against the Republican bill. 
A point of order would also exist against the bill written by the House 
of Representatives. A point of order exists against all of the bills 
designed to try to stimulate this country's economy. But the point of 
order was made against the bill that was brought to the floor by 
Senator Daschle.
  So those who now ask, Where is the stimulus bill? if they voted to 
sustain the point of order, need not ask that very loudly. The stimulus 
bill is where they put it. We were debating it on the floor. It was 
under active consideration. And now it is not. Why? Because a 
substantial number of Members in the other party decided to take it 
from the floor of the Senate.
  We need a stimulus bill. Our economy is in significant trouble, in my 
judgment. We ought to pass a piece of legislation providing lift to 
this economy.
  The President, and others, have asked the question, What is the 
Senate doing? The Senate is trying to pass a bill that provides 
temporary and immediate help to this economy.
  The House of Representatives, on the other side of this building, 
decided they were going to do something quite different with respect to 
stimulus. They decided to pull out a bunch of old, leftover tax 
policies, package them up, and call it a stimulus plan.
  For example, one of their proposals to help this country's economy 
was to give tax rebates, for taxes paid since 1988, for corporations 
under the alternative minimum corporate tax. What does that mean? It 
means a rebate check for $1.4 billion will go to IBM, a rebate check 
for $1 billion will go to Ford Motor Company.
  The fact is, virtually all economists tell us we have substantial 
overcapacity in our economy. Providing tax rebates for the biggest 
companies in the country is going to do nothing to help this economy. 
It is just one more scheme to provide tax rebates, tax checks to the 
biggest interests in the country, and it has nothing much to do with 
improving this country's economy.
  We do need a tax plan and a spending plan that stimulates this 
country's economy. Senator Daschle brought one to the floor of the 
Senate. But it is not here any longer because the minority party in the 
Senate decided they

[[Page 23694]]

wanted to make a point of order and take it from the floor. So I find 
it interesting that we have people coming to the floor, again and again 
and again, saying: The stimulus package is important. Where is it?
  I recall a story about raccoons once, that raccoons have a fastidious 
way of washing everything they eat. When they find something to eat, 
they apparently go find water, and then they use their little hands to 
fastidiously wash what they intend to eat. It is just a habit raccoons 
have. But sometimes raccoons cannot find water, so they pretend there 
is water. They go through the same motions, acting as if they are 
washing their food, despite the fact there is no water.
  We have some of that pantomime activity in the Senate. It is an 
interesting thing to watch. Saying, Where is the stimulus package? is 
almost exactly like that. It is sort of a pantomime piece of 
information: Where is the stimulus package? Those who ask the question 
know exactly where the stimulus package is. They are the ones who took 
it from our consideration in the Senate. It is on the calendar but not 
on the floor because a point of order was made against the stimulus 
package.
  Another point made this afternoon was about the energy policy. We do 
need to develop a new energy policy in this country. Last week, Senator 
Daschle came to the floor of the Senate and made a commitment. He said 
in the first work session after we come back next month, we are going 
to be considering the energy package: a comprehensive energy package, 
not just one piece, but a comprehensive energy package that deals with 
supply and conservation, efficiency, renewables, as well as energy 
security. That bill is going to come from a number of different 
committees in the Senate. It makes sense, to me, to do it that way.
  Energy policy is not just--any longer--about supply and demand. It is 
also about security. Especially since September 11, we now understand 
the issue of energy security must be discussed and debated when we 
construct a new energy policy. The security of nuclear energy 
production plants, the security of transmission lines, the security of 
the thousands of miles of pipelines: All of that is important in the 
context of energy policy as well.
  So we will have an energy bill on the floor of the Senate. Senator 
Daschle is committed to that. But he wants to do it the right way. The 
right way is to consider all of the elements of good energy policy. 
Part of it is production, part of it is conservation, dealing with 
supply and demand.
  It is important to point out, with respect to that piece of an energy 
policy, that some in this Senate and some in Congress would counsel 
that our energy policy for the future should be yesterday forever, just 
do what we did yesterday and keep doing it tomorrow--dig and drill--and 
somehow that will represent a comprehensive energy policy for this 
country.
  I happen to believe we need additional production of energy. There is 
no question about that. We can, should, and will, in my judgment, 
produce more oil, natural gas, and coal, and do so in an 
environmentally acceptable way, to extend our country's energy supply. 
But if that is all we do, we have miserably failed the American people. 
It is, as I said, a policy that says yesterday forever.
  We need to do much more than just expand our supply through digging 
and drilling. We need, it seems to me, to pay great attention to 
conservation. Conserving a barrel of oil is the same as producing a 
barrel of oil. We can achieve substantial savings through thoughtful 
conservation, the right kind of conservation. We can and should adopt 
that as a policy as well.
  For example, we should look at the efficiency of appliances. We can 
also make great progress with respect to the efficiency of those 
appliances we use in our everyday lives. And then there are renewable 
and limitless sources of energy: Fuel cells, ethanol, biomass--a whole 
series of technologies that represent policies for the future that can 
really promote new and exciting forms of energy, many of them renewable 
and some of them limitless.
  That is what a comprehensive energy policy can and should be. It has 
to be much more than just a policy that says let's just provide some 
tax breaks to those who are going to dig for coal and drill for oil.
  That doesn't make any sense. That is not a substitute or an excuse 
for a policy. That is one part of a series of things we ought to 
consider as we consider a new energy policy.
  One of the interesting things to me about energy policy is that we 
don't have a long-term strategy precisely because of the thinking of 
some who have expressed on the floor that we have to have something now 
that opens up ANWR. That is exactly the attitude that has put us in the 
position of not having a long-term strategy.
  If Members come to the Chamber to talk about Social Security, 
everyone talks about what the expectations are 30 and 50 years from 
now. Everyone says what is the situation 25, 30, and 50 years from now 
with respect to the Social Security system. I asked the Energy 
Department, when they testified, what kind of expectations we have 25 
and 50 years from now with respect to energy. What will energy use be? 
What kind of energy will we use? What are we promoting? What kind of 
policies do we have with respect to energy usage that would allow us to 
become more independent? The answer was: We don't have a plan.
  There is no one who can say: Our aspiration, as a nation, is to have 
a certain mix of energy production, of renewables and other forms of 
energy that will extend our energy supply. There is no such plan. 
Nobody thinks out 25 or 50 years.
  As I indicated the other day with respect to my own circumstances, my 
first car was one I restored. As a young boy, I bought an old Model T 
Ford and restored it. Interestingly enough, a 1924 car is gassed up the 
same way you do a 2001 car. You pull up to the pump, you take the cap 
off and stick a hose in it, and you pump gas. Nothing has changed in 75 
years. Everything else in our life has changed. But you still gas up a 
Model T Ford the way you gas up the newest car on the road today.
  You would think perhaps something could change or would change or 
will change if we embrace and adopt thoughtful energy policies, and 
that is what Senator Daschle wants to do. He wants to bring to the 
floor a broad, comprehensive package of energy policies that will 
really advance this country's long-term energy and economic interests. 
That is what we will do in the first work session after the first of 
the year. That makes good sense.
  So those who come here day after day asking where is the stimulus 
package, it is where you put it. You knocked it off the floor of the 
Senate. We want to bring it back with a package that is really 
temporary, immediate, and gives real help to the American economy. When 
they ask the question, where is the energy policy, it is coming to the 
floor in the first work session after we get back in January, and it is 
going to be much more than the limited notion of digging and drilling 
forever. It is going to be a comprehensive energy policy that does 
advance this country's energy and economic interests.
  The subject of fast-track trade authority is one I have spoken about 
without great effect on the Senate floor for many years.
  Apparently, on Thursday of this week, the House of Representatives is 
determined to bring to the floor of the House something called trade 
promotion authority, which is a fancy way of saying ``fast-track trade 
authority,'' by which an administration can go off and negotiate a 
trade agreement, bring it back to the Congress, and the Congress is 
prevented from offering any amendments. We are then required then in 
both the House and the Senate, to vote up or down on these trade 
agreements.
  The House may well have the votes to provide fast-track trade 
authority to this President. I do not know. I don't know what the votes 
are in the Senate. I do know that if the House of Representatives 
passes fast-track trade authority, it will be slowed dramatically when 
it gets to the Senate.

[[Page 23695]]

  I did not support giving fast-track trade authority to President 
Clinton. I do not support giving fast-track trade authority to 
President Bush.
  Why? Let me show with a chart what has happened with this country's 
international trade. Some say this is going well for America. It is 
hard for me to see how that is the case when we have a ballooning trade 
deficit reaching alarming proportions--a $452 billion merchandise trade 
deficit last year alone. That is nearly $1.5 billion a day that we take 
in more in imports than we are able to export.
  It weakens this economy to run up these kinds of trade deficits year 
after year. We can talk about the different trade rounds. We could talk 
about the Tokyo round and GATT and this round and that round. Every 
time we have another trade agreement, we seem to have a larger trade 
deficit. Some say it is because the dollar is too strong; or we have 
too big of a Federal budget deficit. It doesn't matter what the excuse 
is. Economists will give an excuse of the moment. None of them really 
washes. Every time we have a new trade agreement, we tend to see larger 
trade deficits.
  What is the circumstance of international trade? Fast track says we 
give an administration the ability to go negotiate an agreement, bring 
it to Congress, and Congress must vote yes or no without any 
amendments.
  The Constitution says, article I, section 8, Congress shall have the 
power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several 
States and with the Indian tribes. So the responsibility is really with 
the U.S. Congress. Fast track abridges that responsibility.
  I could talk for an hour on the subject of international trade and 
what has happened to us. I understand that we need to expand trade. We 
want to expand trade. We want to broaden our opportunities in trading 
with other countries. I agree fully with that. But I insist that part 
of this country's effort with respect to trade policy ought to be to 
demand fair trade rules with our trading partners.
  In the first 25 years after the Second World War, we could trade with 
anybody in the world with one hand tied behind our back, and it didn't 
matter because we were bigger, better, stronger, and more capable of 
trading than anybody else in the world. We could do that. And most of 
our trade at that point was foreign policy. It was not economic policy; 
it was foreign policy. We created trade agreements that represented our 
foreign policy initiatives with those for whom we wanted to provide 
some help.
  In the second 25 years after the Second World War, when others became 
smarter, better, tougher, with stronger economies, it wasn't quite as 
easy for us to compete. So now we have a circumstance where we have a 
growing number of trading partners that are very shrewd and very 
strong. Over many years Japan, European countries, Canada, and others 
have become, in many cases, formidable trading partners and with whom 
we have experienced very large trade deficits. China is another 
example.
  What has happened with these countries with whom we have these trade 
relations? With respect to Japan, we have had an $50 to $60 billion 
trade deficit every year, every year forever. It has recently grown to 
$80 billion. Should that be the case? I don't think so. They ship us 
all of their goods. We say: Good for them; our market is open to all of 
their goods.
  But did you know that 12 years after we reached a beef agreement with 
Japan, every pound of American beef going to Japan has a 38.5-percent 
tariff on it? Twelve years after our beef agreement, every pound has a 
38.5-percent tariff on it. Send a T-bone steak to Tokyo, it has 38.5 
percent tariff. Is that fair, 12 years after our agreement, with a 
country with whom we have a huge trade deficit? I don't think so.
  See how much luck you have sending pork chops to Peking, or how about 
potato flakes to Korea. Try shipping durum wheat to Canada. You could 
spend a long time talking about the abysmal trade circumstances we have 
as a result of improperly negotiated agreements.
  Let me give you one more example. This happens to be Korea. Last 
year, we shipped into this country 570,000 cars from Korea. Korea 
bought 1,700 from us. Let me say that again. It is important to 
understand the one-way relationship we have: 570,000 automobiles were 
shipped into the United States from Korea. Korea purchased 1,700 from 
us.
  A mid-priced car, a pretty decent car, costs twice as much in Korea. 
They don't want American cars in Korea. They don't buy them. The result 
is a one-way trade relationship with respect to automobiles in Korea. 
But I can describe the circumstances with fructose corn syrup with 
Mexico, potato flakes with Korea, beef in Japan. The list is endless. 
The question for this country is: When will our trade negotiators begin 
showing some understanding that they are negotiating on behalf of the 
United States of America and that they are trying to protect our 
country's interests? When will we send trade negotiators who will say 
to the Canadians that they can't ship all their durum wheat to the 
United States and not allow one little load of ours into Canada? That 
is not fair to durum producers in the United States.
  The point is this: Fast-track trade authority is a moniker for ``do 
you support American business?'' The business that wants fast track is 
international business. They want to buy from themselves and sell to 
themselves. In fact, what I want for this country is fair trade--
expanded, yes, but fair trade. I want negotiators who will negotiate 
fair trade agreements with other countries that will begin reducing 
this ballooning trade deficit that injures our economy. My hope is if 
the House of Representatives decides to pass the fast-track trade 
authority this week, the Senate will slow that down. I and others in 
the Senate--at least a dozen and more--will certainly want to have our 
way to be sure that we are not going to pass very quickly trade 
promotion authority for this President.
  As I said, I didn't support fast-track authority for President 
Clinton. I don't support it for President Bush. What I support is for 
this country to be hardnosed, to have a backbone, some nerve, some 
will, and to insist with China, Japan, Europe, Canada, Mexico, and 
others that we want trade agreements that are fair to American 
producers and to American workers. If the trade agreements are not 
fair, then they ought not be made. I know my colleague from New Mexico 
is waiting. Let me make a final comment to describe the circumstances. 
If I might ask if my time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kerry). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me describe the last big trade debate 
before the vote on GATT; it was NAFTA, the North American Free Trade 
Agreement. Is there anybody left in this Chamber who thinks that made 
any sense? We were promised 350,000 new jobs in a study that all of the 
business interests held up to say look at how great this is going to 
be. We passed the NAFTA trade agreement, and we turned a trade surplus 
with Mexico into a huge growing deficit very quickly. We turned a 
deficit with Canada that was not so awfully large into one that was 
very large.
  So NAFTA--the U.S. trade agreement with Canada and Mexico--turned 
both of these trade relationships into huge deficits. How can that be 
in this country's interest? We were told, well, the situation with 
Mexico will be simple. We will be the beneficiaries of the products of 
low-wage, low-skilled labor from Mexico. Guess what the three largest 
imports from Mexico are to the United States? Automobiles, automobile 
parts, and electronics. All are the products of high-skilled labor--all 
of them.
  In fact, those who sold us on NAFTA were dead wrong. I am hoping if 
we ever have a debate on trade promotion authority--which I hope we can 
defeat--that we can hear from some of the same folks who extolled the 
virtues of a trade agreement that was so bad

[[Page 23696]]

for this country and American producers and workers. My point is, I 
don't want a harmful trade agreement to happen again. We have done the 
United States-Canada free trade agreement, NAFTA, and GATT, all of 
which led to bigger and bigger trade deficits year by year. The trade 
deficit has grown to $452 billion. Every day, over $1.5 billion more in 
goods are coming into this country than we are able to export. No 
country will long remain a strong economic enterprise if it sees its 
manufacturing base dissipating. That is exactly what is happening as a 
result of these trade deficits.
  My point is that the House can have another celebration at the end of 
this week if they pass trade promotion authority, but they should not 
think it is going to happen quickly in this Congress. I and others will 
steadfastly oppose trade promotion authority in the Senate.
  What I want is negotiators who might decide to put on a uniform. We 
send people to the Olympics with uniforms. They actually wear a jersey 
that says ``USA.'' It would be nice to have a trade negotiator put on a 
jersey so they understand who they are representing when they get 
behind closed doors in a negotiating room, and it would be nice if the 
next agreement is fair to this country, fair to our producers, and fair 
to our workers. It has been a long time. I hope we might see that in 
the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.

                          ____________________