[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 19944-19946]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   A FAST WAY AROUND THE CONSTITUTION

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I speak today on the subject: A fast track, 
a fast way around the Constitution.
  Last Friday, I listened with great interest to the concerns that were 
raised in opposition to the free-trade agreements negotiated by the 
administration with Chile and Singapore.

[[Page 19945]]

  Senators cited an abuse of Executive authority and the undermining of 
Congress' plenary powers. I was perplexed, to put it mildly--not at the 
arguments against such abuses by the Executive but at the fact that 
some Senators were only now waking up to the potential for such a power 
grab.
  To those who now express concerns that the plenary powers of the 
Congress are under attack by this administration, I say that we have no 
one to blame but ourselves. The Congress inflicted this wound upon 
itself. We have plunged the knife into our own throats. It is our hands 
on the hilt of that knife.
  I refer to the Congress' massively destabilizing decision to disrupt 
the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches by 
granting fast-track trade negotiating authority to the President.
  So many of the objections expressed last week in opposition to these 
free trade agreements have been raised before, time and time again on 
this Senate floor. Just last summer, they were raised by me, by our 
colleague Senator Hollings, by our colleague Senator Dorgan; by our 
colleague Senator Dayton, and others, warning of the abuse of Executive 
power we were inviting by handing over to the President the authority 
to regulate trade and international commerce.
  We stood on this very floor and spoke to our colleagues, to the 
people in the galleries here and to the public across the land about 
what could be expected from the use of fast-track authority should such 
legislation be passed. We also spoke of the Constitutional 
ramifications of fast track. At the time, our expressions of concern 
apparently fell upon deaf ears.
  Sixty-seven Senators, some of whom are now so urgently speaking in 
opposition to these free trade agreements pending before the Senate, 
voted to grant fast-track authority to the President.
  I can pound my fist on my desk. I can shout with brass lungs. But, 
ultimately, it's not until it's too late, not until the Senate has been 
relegated to the sidelines, not until this Trojan horse has entered 
this sacred chamber that Senators begin to realize just what we have 
given away.
  Shame on us!
  This month, the administration submitted the free trade agreements it 
negotiated with the nations of Chile and Singapore. Included in those 
agreements are proposed changes to U.S. immigration and naturalization 
laws that would create what is effectively a permanent visa worker 
program for Chile and Singapore.
  The trade agreements negotiated by the administration would unfairly 
lower the threshold for up to 1,400 Chileans and 5,400 Singaporeans to 
obtain American jobs. These foreign nationals could renew their worker 
visas indefinitely, year after year, with no limitation, while 
additional foreign workers enter the country to fill the annual 
numerical limitations for new visas.
  Chilean and Singaporean nationals who enter the United States under 
these agreements would effectively be exempted from prevailing wage 
laws. Even though employers must attest that foreign workers will be 
paid the prevailing industry wage and not displace U.S. workers, the 
Labor Department would be prohibited from investigating and certifying 
these attestations prior to the worker entering the country.
  Further, the Congress would have no recourse to remedy any injustice, 
either by setting numerical caps or requiring a Labor Department 
certification, without violating the trade accord.
  With 9.4 million Americans out of work, and an economy that has 
stalled for America's workers, the administration's immigration 
proposals are perhaps the most egregious that I have seen in some time. 
They are a direct threat to American workers who have already been hit 
hard by the Bush administration's economic policies. And now, what jobs 
the administration has not yet destroyed are being given away to 
foreign labor.
  It is not even clear under what authority the administration is 
proposing to make these immigration changes. The Trade Promotion Act 
provides no specific authority to the United States Trade 
Representative to negotiate new visa categories or other changes to our 
immigration laws. The Congress has not granted the administration any 
such authority.
  To the contrary, since the September 11 attacks, the Congress has 
passed legislation requiring the administration to tighten our border 
security and visa entry system--to plug the holes that were exploited 
by the September 11 hijackers. And now the administration is trying to 
open the system all over again.
  I doubt that these immigration provisions could survive outside of 
the expedited procedures of fast track, subjected to thorough debate 
and amendment by the House and Senate. But that may explain why they 
are in these trade agreements in the first place. After all, a free 
trade agreement is not subject to amendment. It is not subject to a 
thorough debate. Any committee action is token, at best. The Congress 
must approve or reject the trade agreement in 90 legislative days.
  These trade agreements and their immigration provisions may only be a 
first step in setting a precedent where the administration can use 
free-trade agreements not only to propose changes to immigration laws 
but to isolate all kinds of controversial legislation from the 
Congress. Perhaps next time the trade agreement submitted will include 
changes involving our military defenses or our international tax laws 
or our foreign aid budget.
  The possibilities are frightening to imagine.
  The late-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of saying that the 
U.S. Constitution does not assume virtue in its rulers. It assumes 
self-interest. And it carefully balances the power by which one 
interest will offset another interest in order to protect against what 
James Madison called ``the defect of better motives.''
  I am sure that many Senators who supported granting fast track 
authority to the President did so because of their support for this 
administration's free trade policies. But in pursuit of free trade, the 
Senate has given away its power to regulate trade and international 
commerce, and has flung itself into the abyss in which it now finds 
itself. If the Senate approves these treaties, the President, who is 
not the repository of all human wisdom, and is as vulnerable to ``the 
defect of better motives'' as any other mortal being, will have a free 
hand, without debate and without review, to dictate not only trade 
policy, but immigration policy as well.
  The Framers of our Constitution would, I am certain, be appalled at 
how, time and time again, the modern-day Congress, under pressure from 
the White House political machine, yields its plenary powers to the 
executive.
  We did it with fast track. We did it with the creation of the 
Homeland Security Department. We did it with respect to the war in 
Iraq.
  The Senate has a duty to reject these trade agreements. Even those 
Senators who support the administration's trade policies must take a 
stand in support of something more important. The executive is, again, 
overreaching and the Senate must not, this time, acquiesce.
  The Senate desperately needs to come to a better understanding and 
appreciation of our Constitution and the powers granted the Congress. 
It needs a better understanding of what exactly is at stake when we 
carelessly meddle with our system of checks and balances and the 
separation of powers. If we disregard the lessons learned from the 
colossal blunder of granting fast track authority to the President, we 
might just as well strike a match and hold that invaluable document to 
the flame.
  We are entrusted with the safeguarding of the people's liberties. It 
is their Constitution. It is their Republic. It is their liberties that 
we have sworn to secure. If we continue to be careless or callous or 
complacent, it is their cherished freedoms that will go up in smoke.

[[Page 19946]]



                          ____________________