[Pages S4744-S4760]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXPANSION ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of H.R. 3009, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 3009) to extend the Andean Trade Preference
Act, to grant additional trade benefits under that Act, and
for other purposes.

Pending:

Baucus/Grassley amendment No. 3401, in the nature of a
substitute.
Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3447 (to amendment No. 3401),
to amend the provisions relating to the Congressional
Oversight Group.
Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3448 (to amendment No. 3401),
to clarify the procedures for procedural disapproval
resolutions.
Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3449 (to amendment No. 3401),
to clarify the procedures for extension disapproval
resolutions.
Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3450 (to amendment No. 3401),
to limit the application of trade authorities procedures to a
single agreement resulting from DOHA.
Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3451 (to amendment No. 3401),
to address disclosures by publicly traded companies of
relationships with certain countries or foreign-owned
corporations.
Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3452 (to amendment No. 3401),
to facilitate the opening of energy markets and promote the
exportation of clean energy technologies.
Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3453 (to amendment No. 3401),
to require that certification of compliance with section 307
of the Tariff Act of 1930 be provided with respect to certain
goods imported into the United States.
Reid (for Durbin) amendment No. 3458 (to amendment No.
3401), to establish and implement a steel import notification
and monitoring program.
Reid (for Harkin) amendment No. 3459 (to amendment No.
3401), to include the prevention of the worst forms of child
labor as one of the principal negotiating objectives of the
United States.
Reid (for Corzine) amendment No. 3461 (to amendment No.
3401), to help ensure that trade agreements protect national
security, social security, and other significant public
services.
Reid (for Corzine) amendment No. 3462 (to amendment No.
3401), to strike the section dealing with border search
authority for certain contraband in outbound mail.
Reid (for Hollings) amendment No. 3463 (to amendment No.
3401), to provide for the certification of textile and
apparel workers who lose their jobs or who have lost their
jobs since the start of 1999 as eligible individuals for
purposes of trade adjustment assistance and health insurance
benefits, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
prevent corporate expatriation to avoid United States income
tax.
Reid (for Hollings) amendment No. 3464 (to amendment No.
3401), to ensure that ISAC committees are representative of
the producing sectors of the United States Economy.
Reid (for Hollings) amendment No. 3465 (to amendment No.
3401), to provide that the

[[Page S4745]]

benefits provided under any preferential tariff program,
excluding the North American Free Trade Agreement, shall
not apply to any product of a country that fails to comply
within 30 days with a United States Government request for
the extradition of an individual for trial in the United
States if that individual has been indicted by a Federal
grand jury for a crime involving a violation of the
Controlled Substances Act.
Reid (for Landrieu) amendment No. 3470 (to amendment No.
3401), to provide trade adjustment assistance benefits to
certain maritime workers.
Reid (for Jeffords) amendment No. 3521 (to amendment No.
3401), to authorize appropriations for certain staff of the
United States Customs Service.
Wellstone amendment No. 3467 (to amendment No. 3401), to
protect human rights and democracy.
Reid (for Hollings) amendment No. 3527 (to amendment No.
3447), to provide for the certification of textile and
apparel workers who lose their jobs or who have lost their
jobs since the start of 1999 as eligible individuals for
purposes of trade adjustment assistance and health insurance
benefits.

Amendment No. 3527

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I am indebted to the leadership for,
last evening, late in the hour, having called up my amendment in the
second degree, I think, to the Byrd amendment.
What is the pending question before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. It is his second-
degree amendment.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
Madam President, I am still smiling because I was coming onto the
elevator with some books, and the elevator operator said: My Lord, are
you going to preach?
I wish I had the talent to preach on this particular score because
the real problem confronting our country is economic strength. There is
no question in my mind that fast track is about the worst thing that we
could possibly adopt. I have yet had the time to really get into a
debate. I would not preach, but I would be delighted to get into a
debate with respect to, actually, the need for a competitive trade
policy, for the rebuilding of our economic strength, and the rebuilding
of our manufacturing capacity.
Somehow or other we have lost sight of the greatness of America. We
think it is the 6th Fleet and the atom bomb. They do not count anymore
in the halls of international and global relations and foreign
diplomacy. What counts now is economic strength, that is the real
battle and war we are in.
They say: You are going to start a war. We have been in a very
viable, competitive, reciprocal free trade, competitive free trade of
which Cordell Hull spoke.
What comes to mind, I was at a conference up in Chicago some years
ago with Akio Morita, the chairman of the board of Sony. He was
speaking about the Third World, the emerging nations. This is some
years back. He was counseling the Third World countries that they had
to develop a strong manufacturing sector in order to become a nation-
state. He was talking along, and then he pointed at me, and then he
said:

By the way, Senator, the world power that loses its
manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power.

That is what is on my mind this morning. It is not just manufacturing
but, of course, our financial dilemma. There is no question in my mind
that we have developed, not a tax-and-spend, but a borrow-and-spend
society.
I ask unanimous consent that the debt to the penny be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

THE DEBT TO THE PENNY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current: 5/21/2002............................ $6,019,261,264,823.37
Current Month:
5/20/2002................................... 6,019,304,226,577.31
5/17/2002................................... 6,019,432,256,973.92
5/16/2002................................... 6,019,475,513,420.98
5/15/2002................................... 6,016,580,911,847.58
5/14/2002................................... 5,990,414,639,076.97
5/13/2002................................... 5,989,198,647,537.89
5/10/2002................................... 5,988,911,662,755.21
5/09/2002................................... 5,978,218,818,210.58
5/08/2002................................... 5,973,205,194,045.55
5/07/2002................................... 5,973,527,635,269.29
5/06/2002................................... 5,969,691,431,266.78
5/03/2002................................... 5,966,885,188,391.86
5/02/2002................................... 5,979,288,646,755.03
5/01/2002................................... 5,974,320,868,797.23
Prior Months:
4/30/2002................................... 5,984,677,357,213.86
3/29/2002................................... 6,006,031,606,265.38
2/28/2002................................... 6,003,453,016,583.85
1/31/2002................................... 5,937,228,743,476.27
12/31/2001.................................. 5,943,438,563,436.13
11/30/2001.................................. 5,888,896,887,571.34
10/31/2001.................................. 5,815,983,290,402.24
Prior Fiscal Years:
9/28/2001................................... 5,807,463,412,200.06
9/29/2000................................... 5,674,178,209,886.86
9/30/1999................................... 5,656,270,901,615.43
9/30/1998................................... 5,526,193,008,897.62
9/30/1997................................... 5,413,146,011,397.34
9/30/1996................................... 5,224,810,939,135.73
9/29/1995................................... 4,973,982,900,709.39
9/30/1994................................... 4,692,749,910,013.32
9/30/1993................................... 4,411,488,883,139.38
9/30/1992................................... 4,064,620,655,521.66
9/30/1991................................... 3,665,303,351,697.03
9/28/1990................................... 3,233,313,451,777.25
9/29/1989................................... 2,857,430,960,187.32
9/30/1988................................... 2,602,337,712,041.16
9/30/1987................................... 2,350,276,890,953.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of the Public Debt.

THE DEBT TO THE PENNY AND WHO HOLDS IT BEGINNING JANUARY 31, 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intragovernmental
Debt held by the public holdings Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current: 5/21/2002................ $3,436,649,451,216.50 $2,582,611,813,606.87 $6,019,261,264,823
Current Month:
5/20/2002..................... 3,438,251,573,271.40 2,581,052,653,305.91 6,019,304,226,577
5/17/2002..................... 3,439,271,479,603.89 2,580,160,777,370.03 6,019,432,256,973
5/16/2002..................... 3,442,068,572,294.49 2,577,406,941,126.49 6,019,475,513,420
5/15/2002..................... 3,439,523,397,954.34 2,577,057,513,893.24 6,016,580,911,847
5/14/2002..................... 3,416,285,823,486.91 2,574,128,815,590.06 5,990,414,639,076
5/13/2002..................... 3,415,564,600,264.24 2,573,634,047,273.65 5,989,198,647,537
5/10/2002..................... 3,415,522,879,129.47 2,573,388,783,625.74 5,988,911,662,755
5/09/2002..................... 3,403,885,470,082.53 2,574,333,348,128.05 5,978,218,818,210
5/08/2002..................... 3,397,455,347,494.59 2,575,749,846,550.96 5,973,205,194,045
5/07/2002..................... 3,396,968,024,725.81 2,576,559,610,543.48 5,973,527,635,269
5/06/2002..................... 3,396,126,515,846.99 2,573,564,915,419.79 5,969,691,431,266
5/03/2002..................... 3,395,972,512,085.24 2,570,912,676,306.62 5,966,885,188,391
5/02/2002..................... 3,395,802,045,107.50 2,583,486,601,647.53 5,979,288,646,755
5/01/2002..................... 3,400,773,341,390.14 2,573,547,527,407.09 5,974,320,868,797
Prior Months:
4/30/2002..................... 3,402,336,886,067.70 2,582,340,471,146.16 5,984,677,357,213
3/29/2002..................... 3,444,137,028,277.33 2,561,894,577,988.05 6,006,031,606,265
2/28/2002..................... 3,442,243,757,040.41 2,561,209,259,543.44 6,003,453,016,583
1/31/2002..................... 3,378,924,426,706.66 2,558,304,316,769.61 5,937,228,743,476
12/31/2001.................... 3,394,398,958,213.60 2,549,039,605,222.53 5,943,438,563,436
11/30/2001.................... 3,404,026,838,038.17 2,484,870,049,533.17 5,888,896,887,571
10/31/2001.................... 3,333,039,379,996.92 2,482,943,910,405.32 5,815,983,290,402
Prior Fiscal Years: 9/28/2001..... 3,339,310,176,094.74 2,468,153,236,105.32 5,807,463,412,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE DEBT TO THE PENNY AND WHO HOLDS IT THROUGH JANUARY 30, 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intragovernmental
Debt held by the public holdings Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior Months:
1/30/2001..................... $3,369,903,111,703.32 $2,370,388,014,843.13 $5,740,291,126,546
12/29/2000.................... 3,380,398,279,538.38 2,281,817,734,158.99 5,662,216,013,697
11/30/2000.................... 3,417,401,544,006.82 2,292,297,737,420.18 5,709,699,281,427
10/31/2000.................... 3,374,976,727,197.79 2,282,350,804,469.35 5,657,327,531,667
Prior Fiscal Years:
9/29/2000..................... 3,405,303,490,221.20 2,268,874,719,665.66 5,674,178,209,886
9/30/1999..................... 3,636,104,594,501.81 2,020,166,307,131.62 5,656,270,901,633
9/30/1998..................... 3,733,864,472,163.53 1,792,328,536,734.09 5,526,193,008,897
9/30/1997..................... 3,789,667,546,849.60 1,623,478,464,547.74 5,413,146,011,397
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page S4746]]

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, they have talked about surpluses,
surpluses, surpluses. You will find in Time magazine this week, up on
the right-hand side--I don't have my copy--where the deficit for 2001
was in excess of $500 billion. Let me repeat that. Look in Time
magazine. We were talking about surpluses when we were cutting taxes
last year. Time magazine alone reported, rather than a surplus we were
running these horrendous deficits.
Of course, the fiscal year has just begun. We have yet to distribute
a lot of the emergency money. For example, I have been trying like the
dickens to get the rail security money to start working on the tunnels
going into New York. The money has been appropriated and voted during
the emergency, but we are not really serious. We are not really serious
about the so-called terrorism war. Here we are already running a $212
billion deficit and the increase to the debt already this fiscal year
was right at almost $100 billion spent from Social Security trust
funds. They are talking about how we could get into it, but this record
that I am introducing is very significant because of what I pointed
out.
Let me have printed in the Record an article by Paul Krugman, ``The
Great Evasion; Where Have All The Taxes Gone?'' I ask unanimous consent
it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the NY Times, May 14, 2002]

The Great Evasion

where have all the taxes gone?

(By Paul Krugman)

Last week Stanley Works, a Connecticut tool company,
postponed its plan to evade taxes by incorporating itself in
Bermuda. The decision reflected pressure from the White
House, which denounced the move as unpatriotic in a time of
national emergency.
I am, of course, making that last part up. The
shareholders' vote approving Stanley's move was challenged by
Connecticut officials; also, the company has been put in the
spotlight by David Cay Johnson, The New York Times's
invaluable tax reporter. But the Bush administration, always
quick to question the patriotism of anyone who gets in its
way, has said nothing at all about Stanley Works, and little
about the growing number of U.S. corporations declaring
themselves foreign for tax purposes.
To be fair, the administration didn't create the loophole
Stanley wants to exploit. And it's not enough just to
denounce corporations that exploit tax loopholes; the real
answer is to deny them the opportunity. Still, the
administration's silence is peculiar. What's going on?
The closest we have to an official statement on the issue
of companies moving offshore comes from the Treasury
Department's chief of tax enforcement: ``We may need to
rethink some of our international tax rules that were written
30 years ago when our economy was very different and that now
may be impeding the ability of U.S. companies to compete
internationally.''
Unfortunately, that statement misrepresents the issue. For
one thing, U.S. companies don't necessarily pay higher taxes
than their foreign counterparts; Germany's corporate tax rate
is significantly higher than ours, France's rate is about the
same, and Britian's is only marginally lower. Anyway, the
Treasury statement makes it sound as if we're losing revenue
because U.S.-based companies are moving their headquarters to
lower-cost locations, or because they are losing market share
to foreign rivals. Neither proposition is true. In fact,
we're losing revenue because profitable U.S. companies are
using fancy footwork to avoid paying taxes.
By incorporating itself in Bermuda, a U.S.-based
corporation can--without moving its headquarters or anything
else--shelter its overseas profits from taxation. Better yet,
the company can then establish ``legal residence'' in a low-
tax jurisdiction like Barbados, and arrange things so that
its U.S. operations are mysteriously unprofitable, while the
mail drop in Barbados earns money hand over fist. In other
words, this isn't about competition; it's about tax evasion.
The natural answer would seem to be to crack down on the
evaders--to find a way to tax companies on the profits they
really earn in the U.S. and prevent them from using creative
accounting to make the profits appear somewhere else. It's
hard, but not impossible.
But here's the key point: Administration officials don't
want to help collect the corporate profits tax. Unable to
push major corporate tax breaks through Congress, the
administration has used whatever leeway it has to offer such
breaks without legislation. The Hill, a nonpartisan
publication covering Congressional affairs, recently reported
on ``a series of little-noticed executive
orders . . . that will provide corporations with billions
of dollars in tax relief without the consent of Congress.''
And now the silence on Stanley becomes comprehensible. The
administration doesn't want to say outright that it's in
favor of tax evasion; but it also doesn't really want to
collect the taxes. Better to say nothing at all.
The trouble is that hinting, even by silence, that it's
O.K. not to pay taxes is a dangerous game, because it can
quickly grow into a major revenue loss. Accountants and tax
planners have taken the hint; they now believe that it's safe
to push the envelope, Tax receipts this year are falling far
short of expectations, even taking the recession into
account; my bet is that it will turn out that newly
aggressive tax avoidance by corporations (and wealthy
individuals) is an important part of the story. And it will
get worse next year.
Furthermore, what does it say to the nation when companies
that are proud to stay American are punished, while companies
that are willing to fly a flag of convenience are rewarded?
If the administration wants to eliminate the corporate
profit tax, let's have a real, open debate--starting with an
explanation of how the lost revenue will be replaced in a
time of severe budget deficits. Meanwhile, let's crack down
on tax evasion.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, you can read there and see where they
have not only cut $1.6 trillion from the revenues and wonder where the
deficits come from, but they are insisting at this particular time to
make permanent certain tax cuts, an additional $4 trillion. Of all
things, our Commander in Chief, the President, says: And by the way,
since we have a war on terrorism, we are going to have to run deficits.
We have paid for every war that we have ever been in. I noted the
other day, last Saturday:

Sharon's Finance Ministry has revised the budget to deal
with the slump and pay for the military effort, particularly
the month-long offensive in the West Bank that ended last
week. It includes raising by 1 percentage point the 17
percent value-added tax, levying higher taxes on diesel fuel
and cigarettes and making cuts in the country's generous
social welfare benefits.

You don't find that back in the United States. Israel is serious
about its war.
But no. We continue with the economy. We think it is bouncing back
because--why? It is not on account of production, and not on account of
investment in the market today, but on account of ``Argentina, a land
that shopped itself to death.''
I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Argentina, A Land That Shopped Itself To Death

(By Matthew Parris)

I always knew there was something queer about Argentina.
You do not need to be psychic to pick up a sense that
something is wrong with a place. Scores of countries are
inhabited by scores of ills, but they muddle through.
Argentina felt wrong in a different way. Travelling there was
more akin to the experience of visiting a company which,
though trading, later turns out to have been a front for
quite another operation; or driving down a modern and
expensive-looking motorway (as I once did in Cuba) where the
sliproads turn out to be dead ends, the bridges across it
bridge nothing to nothing, and the crowds of people milling
inexplicably round beneath them are found to be desperate
hitch-hikers, there being no cars and no petrol.
It just didn't add up. Nor did Argentina.
Arriving at the frontier by bus from Bolivia some years ago
after a 20-hour journey over atrocious roads from La Paz, we
found that from the border post to the nearest town lay a
short stretch of tarmac along which the ten-minute taxi ride
cost more than the cost of the whole Bolivian bus journey. In
the next town, Juyuy, we paid in Argentine pesos and were
given change in crudely printed notes issued by the state
government, there being an insufficiency of funds from
central government in Buenos Aires,
This seemed like anarchy--some kind of breakdown. So how
come, when we reached the next town, Salta, the women were
wearing fur and taking toy dogs for walks on leads? I have
felt the same ``Huh?'' about Israel, Morocco and Saudi
Arabia.
Like Tintin's little dog, Snowy, one surveys the scene with
a question mark suspended above the head. The reasons for
puzzlement vary but the sense of disjunction is the same: a
circuit board with an unfinished circuit; and Escher print
where the perspective disappears up its own staircase; those
people Moral Re-Armament who invited you unaccountably to
lunch in the 1970s; a telephone kiosk in the desert; Mormons.
One observes quizzically yet unable even to frame the
question. Years later, when the thing implodes, one says: ``I
always knew there was something dodgy there; I should have
looked into it; I should have said something.''
But what? This was at a time when all the wise people said
Carlos Menem was doing things right, the peso had linked to
the dollar and the entire Spanish banking system was taking a
punt with Argentine economic

[[Page S4747]]

prospects. To talk of the inherent madness would have
appeared, in itself, mad.
Now, at least, there is acceptance that something is wrong.
Let me take a stab at saying what. I think the problem with
Argentina is shopping.
There is much too much shopping in Argentina, and it has
been going on for a long time. Everybody in Buenos Aires
seems to be shopping and when they are not shopping they are
at yacht clubs, or with their psychoanalysts.
Another favourite pastime is visiting cemeteries, at the
most fashionable of which I was astonished to encounter
something more resembling a city than a place of burial.
Family mausoleums vied with each other for marbled splendour.
Some were multistoreyed, and some went down a couple of
floors beneath ground. One was said to have a lift. Through
the streets of this macabre metropolis women in mink walked
miniature poodles in tartan coats.
Where, then, was the money coming from? I saw some
breweries, a cement works and a Coca-Cola bottling plant, and
there were rumoured to be factories (on strike) in another
part of town. There were also a great many waiters, hotels,
bars, clubs, and sexily skirted shopgirls selling sickly-
sweet pastries and treacly cream. There were window-dressers.
And, everywhere, there was shopping.
Well, it's fairly clear--is it not--what was amiss? The
country was living way beyond its means. People did know
this, on one level at least. They knew what the figures said,
and they blamed the Government for not getting the figures
right. It was all due, they said, ``to corruption''; no doubt
somebody, probably the political class, was salting it away.
Government needed to be ``cleaned up'', people said (while
boasting about how cleverly they were fiddling their own
taxes): but in the meantime much hope was being placed by
some, and much disbelief by others, in whatever it was
President Menem was doing with the currency.
Those who supported pegging the peso to the dollar thought
this would rescue the Argentine economy; those who did not,
thought it would wreck the Argentine economy. On one thing,
however, there seemed to be wide agreement; getting the
currency right would be the basis for economic revival.
To another question, however, little attention was
directed. Given that currency is really just a medium of
exchange, what of the things--the goods and services--to be
exchanged? What were Argentinians making? What were they
doing when not shopping? How hard were they working? What
were they paying themselves for this work? About such
questions I heard less discussion and sensed a lack of focus.
This was very different from neighboring Chile, a humbler
country where the hustle and buzz of economic activity filled
the air.
Currency and corruption because the great evasions of
political discussion in Argentina. Currency was something
somebody else--a politician--had to get right before the
economy would work.
Corruption was the reason why, even after many fine minds
had applied themselves to Currency, the economy was still
refusing to work.
When a political leader has been spat humiliatingly out by
the voters we are understandably disinclined to hitch our
judgment to his star, but Fernando de la Rua, President for
two years since 1999, does seem to me to have been right. And
in the end, the bangers of pots and pans got him.
They will soon be banging their pots and pans outside the
house of their latest President, Eduardo Duhalde. Whatever
left-wing window-dressing, the 60-year-old Peronist veterans
brings to his appointment, the real need and only solution is
austerity, massive spending cuts and an end to
featherbedding. As a Peronist he will not find it easy to
lead this way. Already the pots and pans beat for fresh
elections and the eviction of the entire political class.
Listen to those pots and pans in Argentina. They are a
voice, and a powerful one, of democracy. The voice says ``let
us have our cake and eat it''. The voice has shouted down
government after government in that country.
Nor do you need to remind me that Argentina has only
fitfully enjoyed elected government. It is a great fallacy of
post-1945 political science to equate democracy with elected
government. Democracy is the crowd,the majority, the mob; the
crowd may get its way by electing a government or by
sustaining a dictator. Some of history's most notorious
populists have been dictators and generals; for most
dictators, if they are to survive, must be or became
demagogues.
A dictator--as was Juan Peron--is in some senses more at
the mercy of his people than an elected government, for his
position is inherently precarious and his tenure, however
long, will always have a temporary flavour. Nobody rules for
ever without the love of the people, but elected governments
can on the whole get away with if for longer. A dictator--an
Amin, Mussolini, Mugabe, Hitler, Galtieri--needs to work more
assiduously to please the crowd, and has a greater power to
carry into effect the will of the people, than a prime
minister or elected president. When it suited him, Peron and
his trade unions had no difficulty in winning elections.
But with elections some constitutions, terms of office,
courts and rules of law. These, often thought of as
characterizing democracy, are impediments to the will of the
people, and intended to be. So are the International Monetary
Fund, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the
Federal Reserve Bank, the World Bank, world trade and
``globalisation''. They are bulwarks against the mob.
And they, or a fair few of them, will now have to serve as
President Duhalde's allies against the Argentine electorate,
banging its pots and pans in the face of reality. Lemmings do
not always know what is good for them. Lemmings can be
democrats, too.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, ``Argentina, a land that shopped
itself to death.''
We have gone from the socialistic United Kingdom system of tax and
spend and to the Argentina system of borrowing, spending and shopping
to death. There it is.
It is very interesting. When I talk of the financial dilemma we are
in with a $400 billion trade deficit and we are going to run a nearly
$400 billion fiscal deficit--I want to be here on September 30 and see
where we are measuring up by September 30. We have an election in
November. By October, we will have the figures. It will be nearly a
$400 billion deficit. There isn't any question in my mind.
So you have the fiscal weakness--the enfeeblement, more or less--of
the economy on the one hand and the productivity on the other hand of
not making anything anymore.
I was very interested. That is why I brought this book to the Senate
this morning. The favorite book in Washington today is Theodore Rex
about Teddy Roosevelt. You will find the economic strength of the
country on page 20.

More than half of the world's cotton, corn, copper and oil
flowed from the American cornucopia, and at least one-third
of all the world's steel, iron, silver and gold.

Can you imagine that? Here we just had to put in some restrictions on
the import of steel. It is not more or less trade. It is more about
McNamara and the World Bank. He went running around the world with the
World Bank saying: Wait a minute. In order to become a nation state,
you have to have the weapon of agriculture and the weapons of war. You
have to have a 2-percent steel plant.
I worked with a fellow named Willy Korpf when he brought to South
Carolina, Beaumont, TX, down in Brazil, Saudi Arabia--he was building
them in China a few years ago when he crashed in the Alps coming to his
home.
I dedicated his plant across the Rhine across from Strasbourg,
France, and Kehl, Germany.
But that 2-percent plant all around the world is an overproduction of
steel.
While they argue about steel--I have it in my backyard with NuCor,
which doesn't have any legacy problems. It is the most productive steel
plant in the entire world. Yet we are importing steel at less than cost
on the dock right in front of the Customs house where I have my office
in Charleston, SC, to furnish steel all over the Southeast from Brazil.
That is the kind of situation we are in.
After 100 years, Teddy Roosevelt--yes. Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison--
the Forefathers--were all protectionists. Here it is. They had it. This
is what we have as a result of it.

More than half the world's cotton, corn, copper, and oil
flowed from the American cornucopia, and at least one third
of all steel, iron, silver, and gold. . . . The excellence of
her manufactured products guaranteed her dominance of world
markets. Current advertisements in British magazines gave the
impression that the typical Englishman woke to the ring of an
Ingersoll alarm, shaved with a Gillette razor, combed his
hair with Vaseline tonic, buttoned his Arrow shirt, hurried
downstairs for Quaker Oats, California figs, and Maxwell
House coffee, commuted in a Westinghouse tram (body by
Fisher), rose to his office in an Otis elevator, and worked
all day with his Waterman pen under the efficient glare of
Edison lightbulbs. ``It only remains,'' one Fleet Street wag
suggested, ``for [us] to take American coal to Newcastle.''
Behind the joke lay real concern: the United States was
already supplying beer to Germany, pottery to Bohemia, and
oranges to Valencia.

We had a vote yesterday on a 50-percent tariff on importing oranges,
and they are still bringing them in from Brazil.
Further:

As a result of this billowing surge in productivity, Wall
Street was awash with foreign capital. Carnegie calculated
that America could afford to buy the entire United Kingdom,
and settle Britain's national debt in the bargain. For the
first time in history,

[[Page S4748]]

transatlantic money currents were thrusting more powerfully
westward than east. Even the Bank of England had begun to
borrow money on Wall Street. New York City seemed destined to
replace London as the world's financial center.

Wall Street is on its backside. Why? Because of the enfeeblement of
the economy as we think of our strength.
I emphasize that the security of the United States is like a three-
legged stool. You have the one leg for the values as a nation, you have
the second leg as the military strength, and your third leg as your
economic strength.
On values, we have the respect of the world for standing for
individual freedom and democracy. There is no question whatsoever with
respect to our military power. And with respect to our economic power,
it has become fractured as a result of the conduct after World War II
for the last 50 years, which worked. No one complains about the
Marshall plan and the treating of foreign trade as foreign aid.
But this is what has happened as a result. It has to stop.
Two-thirds of the clothing we wear is imported; 88.5 percent of the
shoes on the floor in the Senate are imported; over half of electric
motors and portable electric hand tools; 71.8 percent of our aircraft
engines and our gas turbines are imported; over a third of our motor
vehicles are imported; over half of the office machines; 95.5 percent
of consumer electronics--we hardly make those anymore--70 percent of
the televisions; 86.7 percent of radio and television broadcasting
equipment; over half of the photographic cameras, 80.8 percent; 82.8
percent of the luggage; 70.3 percent of the bicycles; and 84.8 percent
of the toys.
I hear constantly, ``high tech, high tech.'' Senator, you don't
understand. We are going away from the smokestack industries and we are
going high tech.
Look here. Over half of the semiconductors are imported--we are not
producing the semiconductors that we consume. We are importing the
majority of what we consume, and the same thing is true with computers.
We have a deficit in the balance of trade.
I ask unanimous consent to have the list printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trade
Product deficit Percentage
(millions) of imports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pneumatic tires and tubes..................... -2,286 31.8
Apparel....................................... -56,225 57.6
Footwear...................................... -14,192 88.5
Steel mill products........................... -10,114 21.3
Air-conditioning equipment/parts.............. -449 23.0
Household Appliances.......................... -2,441 31.5
Wrapping, packaging, can-sealing.............. -442 26.2
Textile Machinery............................. -562 58.3
Electric motors and generators etc............ -2,746 29.8
Electrical transformers, static converters.... -3,404 51.8
Portable electric handtools................... -808 36.5
Electric lamps and portable electric lights... -682 39.7
Aircraft engines and gas turbines............. 4,072 71.8
Internal combustion piston engines............ -1,724 24.8
Motor vehicles................................ -106,727 35.6
Office machines............................... -766 50.7
Consumer electronics.......................... -19,005 95.5
Television receivers and video monitors....... -6,549 69.2
Radio and television broadcasting equip....... -4,576 86.7
Semiconductors and integrated circuits........ -2,619 51.2
Computers, peripherals and parts.............. -45,085 56.5
Optical goods, including ophthalmic goods..... -1,887 56.5
Photographic cameras and equipment............ -3,499 46.8
Watches and clocks............................ -3,006 80.8
Luggage....................................... -2,489 82.8
Bicycles and certain parts.................... -1,113 70.3
Toys.......................................... -7,930 84.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, you get an idea of America going out
of business, but more than anything else, we ought to look at
Saturday's business section of the Washington Post.
In contrast to Teddy Roosevelt, and the beginning of the last
century, let us define where we are today. An article is entitled
``Buying American? Maybe Not.''
I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, May 18, 2002]

Buying American? Maybe Not

Many U.S. Brands European-Owned

(By T.R. Reid)

Let's imagine a typical American couple--we'll call them
Bill and Betty Yankee--using a long weekend for an all-
American vacation.
Bill, an engineer at Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., in Upstate
New York, and Betty, a clerk at Casual Corner, take their
Jeep down to the Amoco station for a fill-up, pop a Dave
Matthews album into the cassette player and head west. They
drive all day, except for a quick lunch at Burger King, and
stop for the night at a Holiday Inn outside Pittsburgh. In
their room, Bill smokes a couple of Lucky Strikes and watches
``A Beautiful Mind'' on pay-per-view, while Betty curls up
with a bottle of Snapple and the new Philip Roth novel she
just received from the Literary Guild.
The next day, they get some cash at a Mellon Bank ATM, fill
the tank at a Shell station and drive all the way to Chicago.
There they meet their daughter Barb, a copywriter at the Leo
Burnett advertising agency, who proudly shows her parents the
ad she has written for Taster's Choice coffee. Barb's
husband, Bob, a reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times, is
delighted with the Brooks Brothers necktie his in-laws
brought him.
It all sounds thoroughly American. However, just about
every product and service that the Yankee family bought or
used on this trip came from European-owned companies.
The family Jeep is made by Germany's DaimlerChrysler. The
Amoco station belongs to the British oil company BP and the
Shell station to Royal Dutch Shell, an Anglo-Dutch
combination.
Burger King is owned by Britain's beverage giant Diageo,
Holiday Inn by the big British hotel firm Six Continents.
Mellon Bank is a subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland.
The Oscar-winning movie ``A Beautiful Mind'' was released by
Universal Studios, a subsidiary of the French media colossus
Vivendi Universal, which is also a major operator of pay-per-
view television in the United States. Philip Roth's
publisher, Houghton Mifflin, is another Vivendi subsidiary.
The Literary Guild is part of the global empire of the German
publishing giant Bertelsmann. Lucky Strikes are made by
London-based British American Tobacco. Snapple is owned by
Britain's Cadbury Schweppes. Taster's Choice coffee belongs
to Nestle SA of Switzerland.
It's fitting, in a way, that the Yankee family is
constantly buying from European companies, because all four
of the Yankees--like millions of other Americans today--are
employed by European-owned firms. Niagara Mohawk is one of
several American power utilities owned by Britain's National
Grid. Both Brooks Brothers and the 1,000-store Casual Corner
chain are part of an Italian conglomerate, Retail Brand
Alliance. The Leo Burnett agency belongs to a French group,
Publicis. Even a product as localized as the Chicago Sun-
Times is owned by a company that is owned by the London media
magnate Conrad Black.
``We live in a globalized world, and the products Americans
use now can be owned by companies almost everywhere,'' notes
John Palmer, a director of the European Policy Centre, a
Brussels-based think tank. ``Since we've seen the rise of
some very powerful European multinationals in the recent
past, it's only natural that these companies would extend
their reach to the U.S.''
The seemingly endless web of European connections woven
through corporate America today reflects a surge of
investment from Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands,
Italy, Ireland, Scandinavia and other parts of Western Europe
over the past decade. The long U.S. economic boom of the '90s
drew hundreds of billions of dollars from European investors
into American companies, according to the European-American
Business Council, an advocacy group based in Washington.
Europe is by far the top source of foreign direct investment
in the United States.
European investors say the flow of money across the
Atlantic is a tribute to the strength and the promise of the
U.S. economy.
``Why invest in the U.S.A.? It's simple,'' says Sir Ian
Prosser, chairman of Six Continents PLC, the hotel firm with
headquarters in London. ``It's a great economy, and it
produces great returns. Beyond that, the U.S. is so
competitive that we know the things we learn operating there
will help us in all our other markets around the world.''
Money flows the other way, too. Through names like
McDonald's, Starbucks or the Gap, U.S. investment is evident
in virtually every European city. But similarly, the American
presence is not restricted to American labels. Such famous
European car brands as Volvo, Jaguar, Aston Martin and Land
Rover are all owned by Ford Motor Co.
Even so, the United States is a net gainer, by hundreds of
billions of dollars, from the back-and- forth investment. In
2000, according to Commerce Department figures, U.S. direct
investment in Europe reached $650 billion; European
investment in the United States was almost $900 billion. In
economic terms, the big U.S. surplus in direct investment
helps pay for the big U.S. deficit in international trade.
The European-American Business Council says that Europeans
are the top foreign investors in 44 states, with Texas and
California receiving the most funds. In Maryland, 60 percent,
or $6.8 billion, of foreign investment money has come from
Europe. Virginia has $14.7 billion in European investments,
representing 68 percent of total foreign investment.
Some 3.9 million Americans work directly for European-owned
companies, the council says.
The result of this transatlantic tidal wave of investment
is that many of the products that seem most familiar to
American consumers now come from European companies.
Even the word ``America'' in the brand name doesn't imply
American ownership anymore. The American Heritage Dictionary
is another Vivendi property. RCA Records, once part of the
Radio Corporation of America, belongs to Bertelsmann. There
may be

[[Page S4749]]

nothing more American than apple pie, but Mott's apple pie
filling, along with Mott's apple juice and apple sauce, are
British-owned.
Europeans have also put major amounts of money into
American financial companies. In addition to Mellon Bank,
Royal Bank of Scotland owns more than 15 other U.S. banking
institutions. The respected investment bank once known as
First Boston is now Credit Suisse First Boston, a unit of
Zurich-based Credit Suisse Group.
In Baltimore, fast-growing Allfirst Bank is a subsidiary of
Allied Irish Banks of Dublin, and the city's traditional
brokerage house, Alex. Brown, belongs to Deutsche Bank.
Just over a decade ago, when Japanese companies were
pouring large sums into U.S. businesses and real estate, the
investment sparked fear and anger among many Americans. There
was a concern that Tokyo was snatching up America's corporate
jewels. When Sony purchased Columbia Pictures, for example,
Newsweek's cover featured the Statue of Liberty dressed in a
kimono and the headline ``Japan Invades Hollywood.''
But the new wave of European investment has spawned almost
no adverse reaction among Americans. Perhaps Americans are
proud that foreign investors want to put their money into the
U.S. economy. Perhaps there is a growing public awareness of
the process of globalization, with multinational companies
buying and selling subsidiaries all over the world. Perhaps
Americans just don't know how much of their daily commerce is
done with European-owned firms. Or could it be that Americans
don't mind if blue-eyed Christians from Europe buy their
companies but are less comfortable when Asians do?
Since the U.S. government, industry and financial markets
all welcome the influx of funds, there's probably not much
relief available for any Americans who are worried about the
wave of European ownership. The only thing to do, really, is
head out to a bar and drown your worries with a classic
American drink like a ``seven and seven.''
Of course, this might not be a completely satisfying
response, because both parts of that familiar cocktail come
from British companies today: Seagram's Seven Crown belongs
to Diageo, and 7Up is one of the flagship brands of Cadbury
Schweppes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I will not read the entire article. It
is very interesting.

The entire article is in the Record.
It is just ludicrous when you hear this talk about free trade, free
trade, and global competition. I don't want to sound like Al Gore, but
I know a little bit about global trade. I didn't invent it. But 40
years ago, as a Governor, I went to both Latin America and to Europe to
seek industry, and today we have 125 German industries in South
Carolina. I have not had much luck recently on carpetbagging New York,
but I used to go up there regularly and move everything I could find up
there down to South Carolina. But the opportunities now are in Europe
and out in the Pacific rim.
I called on Michelin exactly 40 years ago--well, 42, I guess--in late
May or June of 1960. We have four Michelin French plants, their North
American headquarters.
So don't lecture us, who have lost 53,900 textile jobs, about
globalization. The fact is, there is no such thing as free trade. Never
has been. Never will be. In the earliest days----
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I am going to get through my thoughts here, and then I
will be glad to yield. But I do not have it on the record, and I want
to put this particular subject on the record as I see it and can
remember it.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I just want to ask unanimous consent for
something.
I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized following Senator
Hollings.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Very good. I thank the distinguished Senator.
Mr. President, what happened was, in our earliest days we had just
won our freedom when the David Ricardo comparative advantage crowd in
the mother country, Britain, corresponded with Alexander Hamilton and
said: Now what you ought to do is trade with us what you produce best,
and we will trade back with you what we produce best--free trade, free
trade, Adam Smith, market forces, and everything else of that kind.
Alexander Hamilton wrote a report on manufacturers. I have a copy of
it now. There is one original copy over in the Library of Congress. But
in a line, he told the Brits: Bug off. We are not going to remain your
colony, importing all the manufactured goods and exporting to you our
rice, our cotton, our indigo, our lumber, timber, and iron ore, and so
forth.
The second bill that passed this Congress in its history--the first
bill being for the Seal of the United States--the second bill in the
history of the Congress, that passed on July 4, 1789, was
protectionism, a tariff bill of 50 percent on 60 articles.
Protectionism was supported throughout the building of America during
the 1800s--Lincoln with steel protectionism; protectionist Roosevelt
with agricultural support prices, protective quotas and import quotas;
Eisenhower in the middle 1950s with oil import quotas, protectionist
Eisenhower. Those who built protected.
After all, that is the oath we take, to preserve and protect. We have
the FBI to protect us from enemies within, the Army to protect us from
enemies without, Social Security to protect us from the ravages of old
age, Medicare to protect us from ill health; the clean air, clean
water--we have safety rules and everything. The fundamental job of
Government is protection.
Here we have the highest standard of living. All these Senators run
around on the floor, they want the environment, they want safety, they
want parental leave, and they want plant closing notice. Fine. We have
them all on the books. But you can go down to Mexico for 58 cents an
hour and none of that. And if your competition goes, you are going to
have to leave. And that is what has been happening.
But you have these folks on the floor of the Senate who are
determined to wreck the economy. There never has been any such thing as
free trade, and never will be. Almost like world peace: you strive for
it. You strive for it, and it will not happen in my lifetime or your
lifetime.
More than anything else, all you have to do is just look at the books
published by none other than the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative--``Foreign Trade Barriers.'' This one in 1992 had 267
pages. They are talking about, oh, the wonderful success of fast

[[Page S4750]]

track, fast track; we are going to really bring down trade barriers,
increase jobs.
This one is for 2002: ``National Trade Estimate Report of Foreign
Trade Barriers.'' This has gone up to 458 pages. It has gone up 200
pages. They are increasing the barriers. They are competing. Reciprocal
free trade, reciprocal free trade, said Cordell Hull, to compete. So
what happens is, we have the competition of the countries themselves.
Let me explain just what all they do. They begin with import
licensing. We do not have that. You have a tough time getting an import
license into Japan or even into China or Korea. If you want to import
textiles into Korea, you have to have a vote of the Korean textile
authority. The ones over there with whom you are competing vote you
out. You never get in.
In banking, they talk about free trade, free trade. The day before
yesterday, the Japanese lowered the yen. That is market manipulation.
So with a lower yen, they can increase their exports. That is not free
trade, free market, free market, free trade. They have inspection
practices.
Let's put it this way. If you want a 2002 Toyota in France, it is on
the dock in Le Havre being inspected, and by January 1, 2003, you can
get last year's model, 2002. The same with the CDs and VCRs, they put
them up at a place in France. They have all of these inspection
practices. They are all tricks of the trade.
We just had a hearing on Enron. The lawyer had a memo there about all
the tricks of the trade. They have such things as different snow when
you go to sell ski equipment in Japan. And I have a paper company, West
Virginia Pulp and Paper. They tried to emulate and mimic and produce
cigarette paper. They worked on it for 2 years, got the exact duplicate
of it and everything over there, and they still wouldn't let them bring
that cigarette paper in. They said it was still different.
What you have in essence is the fundamental practice. That is what
has to be emphasized as I try to explain this. We operate in the free
market, capitalistic market in the United States on price and quality.
Not so in global competition. They couldn't care less about price. They
try for a good price and try for quality, but it is below price, below
the production cost. That Lexus I have that costs $35,000 in
Charleston, SC, costs $45,000 to $50,000 in downtown Tokyo. All of the
prices are less than cost. Can you understand why they fought so
vigorously the idea of doing away with our dumping laws? We can easily
prove they are selling as loss leaders. They are selling at less than
cost in the United States of America, but that is the name of the game.
As I said, the Japanese have already taken over a third of the
automobile market, already a majority of the semiconductor, and a
majority of the computer market. You can go right on down the list.
Once they get market share, they will run the prices up. The
competition is not with respect to productivity. We are constantly
chastising the workers of the United States. You go to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics or the economic section of the United Nations; they
both agree that the most productive industrial worker in the world is
the U.S. industrial worker. There is no question about their producing,
but we are not in the competition. We are talking about quality and
productivity. They are talking about dumping. That is why they fought
right here to a tie vote with respect to trying to get that amendment.
That is why the U.S. Trade Representative went to Doha and said: Don't
worry about it. We will have a good conference because we are going to
get rid of the dumping laws.
That is exactly what they are saying. Now they have fast track, and
they are ready to do it. They can get rid of the dumping laws. This is
a fix on that.
More than anything else, you have to understand the competition. The
competition isn't with respect just to market share and countries. On
the contrary, we have met the enemy, and it is us. I will never forget
my good friend Bobby Kennedy who used to have this desk. He came into
the limelight in America with a book called ``The Enemy Within.'' He
was talking about Hoffa and organized labor.
I can write that same book, ``The Enemy Within,'' about management.
It is corporate executive America. They couldn't care less about it.
I hope I can get an article here by Henry Kauffman. I had the
article, but I don't know that I brought that over this morning because
I didn't realize I was going to have this opportunity. He said way back
that people in the olden days when you owned the horse, you were
supposed to feed the horse while it was alive, and if the horse was
dead, the owner was responsible to bury the horse.

That is not the case with corporate executive America today. They
just pass through, sometimes hostile takeovers and everything else of
that kind. They are trying to get the stock up over a 3-year period,
give them a golden parachute, and move on. They don't feel the
obligation to stay. So what happens is, they have learned on the one
hand that they can save tremendous money in cost with respect to
producing offshore. Thirty percent of volume or sales is in your labor
cost and manufacturing. And you can save as much as 20 percent of your
sales cost by moving to an offshore low-wage country or down to Mexico.
If you retain your executive office and your sales force but move
your manufacturer offshore to a low-wage country, what you do is, if
you have $500 million in sales, you can make $100 million before taxes
or you can continue to work your own people and go broke. That is the
job policy of corporate America, adopted in fast track by the Senate.
That is what I am trying to bring home to those who are not thinking,
including my farmer friends.
Yes, I listed the different industrial articles. We have a deficit in
the balance of trade in cotton. You can go right on down the
agricultural commodities. Let China keep coming, and in 3 or 4 years we
will have a deficit in the balance of trade in wheat. We have
competition in durum wheat. That is why we have one friend here from
North Dakota. But there is no question in my mind that what we have is
just that, the enemy within.
What do they do? They band together not to build, as we are
responsible to build this country in the Senate, not to create jobs, as
our primary responsibility to keep America economically strong and
create jobs and job opportunities, but theirs is to export the jobs as
fast as they can. They band together with the Business Roundtable, the
National Association of Manufacturers, the conference board, but more
particularly, the Chamber of Commerce.
I saw that change come about with Tom Donahue when we went over
there. That National Chamber of Commerce couldn't care less about main
street America. They have no idea of creating jobs or opportunity or
representing main street America. I could tell you now, I was in this
before. I will never forget--I might as well identify myself as not
antilabor, but certainly I am not ready to vote just labor's way. I am
from a right-to-work State. I voted for that law. And more
particularly, when we had a debate when Russell Long was chairman of
the Finance Committee, I was the fellow who blocked labor law reform on
eight occasions. We had eight votes up and down on cloture. I won on
all eight votes.
In years passed, I have received honors from the Chamber of Commerce.
So I know from whence I come and speak. We have developed more industry
than that Donahue. He came from a trucking outfit. They put him on a
few boards. He has picked up here on trial lawyers and everything else
like that.
But what we have confronting us in the Senate is not weapons of mass
destruction and Saddam. We have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
weapons of class destruction.
The greatness of America is when Henry Ford said: Look, I want that
fellow who is producing the automobile to be able to buy it. He started
Middle America, the industrial wage. They had benefits and health care
and everything else of that kind. These are the jobs we are losing hand
over fist.
The first thing we brought out on debate on so-called free trade--
they would not even admit it from the Finance Committee--is not how we
were going to create jobs. First, they added how are we going to take
care of those who lost the jobs--"adjustment assistance,'' they call
it. So we are not producing, and we are into a situation where you have
limited time.

[[Page S4751]]

I understand the time will run out this afternoon around 4 o'clock.
They worked it into this particular situation. Yes, everybody wants to
go home for the Memorial Day break. They always do it. When we
adjourned before with GATT in November, we were going home for
Thanksgiving. They always find a holiday and work it up and fix the
vote.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this
particular point the article in the Washington Post, dated December 26,
1993.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Dec. 26, 1993]

The NAFTA-Math; Clinton Got His Trade Deal, But How Many Millions Did
It Cost the Nation?

(By Charles Lewis)

The orgy of deal-making that preceded the House of
Representatives vote on NAFTA illustrated just how little the
mercenary culture of Washington has changed since the arrival
of a Democratic administration.
Estimates of the total cost of the deals around NAFTA vary
widely. Gary Hufbauer, a trade expert who has written
favorably about NAFTA for the Institute for International
Economics, told the Associated Press that the last-minute
deals cost in the ``tens of millions of dollars.'' Public
Citizen, the consumer organization founded by Ralph Nader,
estimates that the deals cost at least $4.4 billion. The
Nation magazine, which has been critical of NAFTA and
``Republicrat'' Clinton, says the total cost of the eleventh
hour wheeling-and-dealing might ultimately amount to $50
billion.
Hyperbole aside, the quantifiable cost to the taxpayer of
the NAFTA deals will be at least $300 million. American
consumers will also pay higher prices on a wide variety of
goods because of special interest tariff agreements reached
during the NAFTA bazaar. Rep. Dick Zimmer (R-N.J.), who voted
for NAFTA, is disgusted about the ``presidential giveaways,''
and he plans to introduce legislation in January to repeal
the various NAFTA deals, arguing that ``such sordid behavior
debases the legislative process.'' But good luck trying to
figure out what deals were made. Many of the particulars of
what transpired have disappeared like steam into the air.
Normally loquacious members of Congress are tongue-tied or
unavailable to comment about their NAFTA votes, while White
House officials dismiss the subject as sour grapes. But many
of the details of numerous deals have been documented and
confirmed. They illustrate the financial forces that shaped
Congress's voting and may have tipped the balance in favor of
the agreement.
The biggest single taxpayer outlay was snared by Rep.
Esteban Torres (D-Calif.). Concerned about NAFTA support
among Hispanic members of Congress, the White House wrote a
``U.S.-Mexico Executive Agreement'' to create a bi-national
North American Development Bank. The cost will be at least
$250 million. Torres, a former United Auto Workers union
official, voted for NAFTA after receiving this expensive
concession.
Two undecided Georgia Democrats extracted $15 million from
the administration. The aptly named Rep. Nathan Deal and Rep.
George ``Buddy'' Darden decided to vote for NAFTA when
the White House agreed to hire 136 new customs agents just
for the textile and apparel industries. As Darden told the
Atlanta Constitution, ``I was very impressed by the White
House's responsiveness to the textile industry.''
To secure votes in the Texas delegation, the administration
promised to speed up the building of the Center for the Study
of Western Hemispheric Trade somewhere in Texas. Cost: $10
million. $33 million to vegetable interests in Florida to
complete an agricultural research station.
One of the most amusing illustrations of how difficult it
is to arrive at the true cost of NAFTA involves Rep. Eddie
Bernice Johnson, a first-term Democrat from Texas. The
Journal of Commerce broke the story that Johnson agreed to
support NAFTA after an unnamed administration official
promised that the Pentagon would purchase two additional C-17
cargo planes--at a cost of $1.4 billion--from the Vought
Aircraft factory in her south Dallas district. The
controversial military transport plane has an impressive
history of technical failures. Johnson claims she was
misquoted. Her decision to support NAFTA, she says, was based
on the ``broad needs'' of her constituents; the Journal of
Commerce reporter stands by his story.
That's one reason why estimates of the NAFTA price tag
vary: Public Citizen includes this alleged $1.4 billion deal
in their estimate of $4.4 billion.
Another reason: the ultimate costs of the special-interest
tariff deals before the NAFTA vote are difficult to gauge.
For example, a special ``snap-back'' tariff mechanism was
agreed to with Mexico to protect Florida citrus growers. If
U.S. orange juice concentrate prices fall to certain levels,
a tariff is imposed on Mexican oranges; American consumers
will be denied the benefits of lower orange juice prices.
Similar formal ``Executive Letter of Agreement'' tariff
agreements were made on sugar and syrup goods, wine and
brandy, flat glass, home appliances and bedding components
such a springs, iron rails and wooden parts, to name a few.
These executive letters of agreement are a form of
protectionism extended to certain well-connected business
interests. Hufbauer, the pro-NAFTA trade expert, said in a
recent interview that they could ``easily cost American
consumers hundreds of millions'' of dollars.
The more candid members of Congress acknowledged that their
votes were being bought. Florida Rep. Tom Lewis, a
Republican, who supported the pact after the Clinton
administration explicitly agreed to raise tariffs temporarily
on imported tomatoes from Mexico, told the New York Times,
``I look with disdain on the way this whole thing has been
done . . . It almost looks like you're selling your soul.''
A week before the vote Rep. Bill Brewster (D-Okla.) was
undecided about NAFTA. He had two personal meetings with the
president and dozens of phone calls from administration
officials. He let it be known that he would not supporter
NAFTA without specific concessions for his constituents. In
the end, as the Washington Times reported, the White House
agreed to help cattle ranchers and peanut growers in his
district. As Brewster put it, ``I know how this place
operates . . . I made sure we got it in writing.''
Other, savvier deal-makers were explicit about not getting
a quid pro quo. Rep. Charlie Rose (D-N.C.) played a crucial
role in the House anti-NAFTA working group led by Majority
Whip David Bonior until literally hours before the vote. But
Rose had told a reporter that ``I could be persuaded by the
White House if they were sufficiently serious to lower the
tobacco tax to pass NAFTA.'' Rose was then lobbied by the
White House and wound up voting for NAFTA.
``I didn't sell my vote,'' Rose insisted to reporters. ``I
just told those people: `Look, if I vote with you, I want you
to be as understanding as you possible can about the kinds of
problems agriculture has and needs to address in 1994.''
In other words, Rose's vote was bought on a layaway plan.
The ultimate cost, if any, won't be known until next year,
when the Clinton administration sends Congress its proposal
to raise taxes on cigarettes.
After the NAFTA vote, Bill Clinton was compared in these
pages and elsewhere to Lyndon Baines Johnson, for his
aggressive, unabashed use of political power in dealing with
Congress. The comparison implies that pork-barrel politics,
while unfortunate and unseemly, is necessary to achieve
success, and always has been.
Perhaps. But LBJ, even in his most legendary arm-twisting
mode, never led a domestic lobbying campaign as lopsided as
Clinton's NAFTA effort. Forget the testimonials elicited from
Nobel laureate economists, the former secretaries of state,
former presidents, Lee Iacocca and Bill Gates. Consider the
Clinton persuasion tactics in the larger context of the NAFTA
lobbying effort.
Ross Perot, labor unions and other NAFTA opponents spent
less than $10 million, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Mexican government and business interests, by contrast,
retained scores of lobbying, public relations and law firms
in Washington at the cost of $30 million. And the leading
pro-NAFTA lobbying group, USA*NAFTA, and individuals U.S.
corporations with factories in Mexico spent another $10
million to promote the pact. Add to these two figures the
$300 million in government funds that the Clinton
administration committed for the sake of passing NAFTA, and
it seems likely that NAFTA proponents outspent their
opposition by a margin of more than 30-1.
More importantly, LBJ never promised to do things
differently. Clinton did. In accepting the democratic
presidential nomination in July 1992, he declared his
antipathy for special-interest wheeling and dealing in
Washington. ``For too long, those who play by the rules and
keep the faith have gotten the shaft,'' he said. ``And those
who cut corners and cut deals have been rewarded.''
Sixteen months later, when Clinton was in danger of losing
vote on NAFTA, those who cut deals were the ones who reaped
the biggest rewards. And those who kept the faith that
Clinton might change the way politics is done in Washington
were the ones who got the shaft.
Charles Lewis is founder and executive director of the
Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit research
organization based in Washington and funded by foundations,
corporations, labor unions, individuals and revenues from
news organizations. Margaret Ebrahim of the center provided
research assistance.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, you can find out that they gave a
cultural center; President Clinton gave golf games; they gave--and this
is all for NAFTA. That particular article was dated 1993. Anyway, it
talks about how they fixed fast track and changed the votes on the
House side. They do the same thing within the Finance Committee. You
don't have any debate. Without fixing the votes, they cannot get
cloture--they impress cloture upon you, I should say. You don't get
time for debate.
So what we have now is the executives, finally, not only moving their
manufacturing, they are moving their executive offices to Bermuda.
I don't think this amendment is up, but I had one with respect to the
textiles. I wanted to try to compensate those who, in the last 3
years--1999,

[[Page S4752]]

2000, 2001--have lost their jobs, some 334,000. The cost of the
amendment itself is about a billion dollars. We are trying to get them
health care so they can continue and get some kind of training and
adjustment assistance, having lost their jobs. We were told in NAFTA we
were going to create jobs, and we lost 53,900 jobs. But not only are we
losing the jobs, but they have the unmitigated gall--corporate
America--to move offshore and not pay any taxes. They want that mother
and father of that 18-year-old we recently lost in Afghanistan--they
want that mama and daddy, who are working, to pay taxes. You can tell
this society is on a binge. The President ran adds for 3 minutes,
saying: Take your trips, go to Disney World, go and take a trip--and
everything else like that. They don't want to pay for the war.
Now we have corporate America AWOL from the terrorism war. They are
all going overseas, down to Grenada, and over to Bermuda and everywhere
else so they won't pay taxes. Never mind about leveling the playing
field. You could not blame the other countries that don't have this
high standard of living. Any one of the countries--in China, they are
building their industrial capacity just right. Over in China, they say,
look, in order to sell, you have to produce that Buick car. Wait a
minute, they say after that, you have to move your research here. The
most modern automobile research is in China. Of course, they have the
outstanding engineers at a next-to-nothing cost.
So now--I don't have the article here--they are moving Japan's
futuristic research, cutting edge research, into China. So what you
have is the competition of 1.3 billion producers in agriculture and
industry, and we are hollering ``fast track, fast track,'' and we have
to aid somebody. We have run out of gas, as I pointed out. Level the
playing field? You cannot do it Washington's way, Mr. President.
They tell me: Senator, don't worry about it, we have to retrain, re-
educate. I will give you an example. Oneida, in South Carolina, makes
clothes. They have 487 workers. The average age of those 487 workers
was 47. So we will do it Washington's way and we will train those 487
workers, and tomorrow morning they are computer operators, expert
computer operators. Mr. President, are you going to hire the 47-year-
old computer operator or the 21-year-old? You are not going to take on
the health costs of the 47-year-old. You are not going to take on the
retirement costs of a 47-year-old. You are going to be hiring the 21-
year-olds.
When they have lost their jobs, they quit making payments on the
automobile, and they quit making payments on their house. Some of them
have lost their houses and everything else like that, with 53,900 in
South Carolina alone, and 700,000 in the country. These are just the
ones in the last couple of years we are trying to get at, as we did
with the steelworkers, and we got a majority vote on that. That is what
I had lined up. I was going to pay for it by closing the Bermuda tax
loophole. It is a national disgrace.

They talk about when they have an intelligence breach--and I never
accused the President of knowing anything. I don't think it was passed
on. That is obvious from what I am reading. There isn't any question
that the fellow up in Minnesota wrote a memo--read Time magazine this
week--a detailed memo on how they might fly into the World Trade
Towers. I don't know why they keep getting the fellow from Phoenix, AZ.
Get the one from Minnesota. He said they might fly into the World Trade
Towers.
Seaport security has languished in the House since before Christmas.
Rail security has languished at the desk since before Christmas. They
are not about to pay the bills or put on any taxes to pay for this war.
They want another $4 trillion tax cut. This is one of those situations
where we need just as much help.
I wish I had the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, here to
talk about building and fighting the war and everything else. I never
heard anything more eloquent on behalf of the steelworkers. I support
her. She is magnificent. I wish I had her here to describe the plight
of these textile workers. They are just as important to our security.
I will emphasize this: In 1961--and it is still on the books today--
there was a national security provision preventing the President from
taking Executive action in trade, unless he proved first that the item
in question was important to our national security. I went at that time
to hearings, along with George Ball from the State Department, Freeman
of the Department of Agriculture, Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg,
Secretary of Commerce Luther Hodges, and we had Secretary of the
Treasury Douglas Dillon. We had the hearings, and it is on the books of
the United States of America that, next to steel, textiles is the
second most important to our national security. So we are not just
talking about a cheap price. America wasn't built on consumerism;
America was built on building and creating jobs.
For 100-some years, in Teddy Roosevelt's time when we had a strong
America, we didn't even have the income tax. The tariffs and
protectionism built this country, and under Eisenhower, Roosevelt, and
other distinguished Presidents, we continued to build.
This crowd has nothing but boast politics. They couldn't care less.
Fast track--we will just vote it. The excuse will be I had to do it. It
was either take it or leave it. It ought to be a shame to vote against
the Constitution. Article I, section 8, not the President, not the U.S.
Trade Representative, but the Congress of the United States shall
regulate foreign commerce.
Here I am begging to perform my own responsibility, and the vote is:
You do not have the responsibility; we are going to do it, and you have
to take it or leave it, up or down; you are not going to be in charge--
fast track.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields the floor and reserves the
remainder of his time.
Under the previous order, the Senator from North Dakota is
recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, by previous consent, I was to be
recognized following the presentation by Senator Hollings. I wish to
propose, for the convenience of others in the Chamber, a slightly
different arrangement. Senator Grassley wishes to be recognized. I ask
unanimous consent that Senator Grassley be recognized for 20 minutes,
with Senator Landrieu following for 15 minutes, Senator Corzine for 15
minutes; and, following that, I be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak against the Hollings
amendment that is before the Senate. I will tell you two reasons I
strongly oppose the amendment.
My comments are in regard to why trade adjustment assistance should
not be expanded in the way Senator Hollings proposes it. Before I give
those reasons, I remind my colleagues of the tremendous expansion of
trade adjustment assistance that is already in the bipartisan bill
before the Senate. A lot of programs that are part of trade adjustment
assistance have never been part of the program in the 40-year history
of trade adjustment assistance.
We in a bipartisan way in this body are very concerned about workers
who are dislocated for trade or economic reasons. The usual retraining
and support programs are being continued, but as one of several
examples of additional programs, we are going to provide health
insurance benefits for dislocated workers because of trade under trade
adjustment assistance.
When I speak against any further outrageous expansions of this
program, as Senator Hollings' amendment would do, I do not want anybody
saying that those of us who oppose it do not have any concern about
those who are dislocated because of trade.
First, this is an extremely expensive, radical expansion of the Trade
Adjustment Assistance Program that cannot be justified in any fashion
as a program that is related to trade. In fact, this amendment
completely severs the traditional 40-year link between adjustment
assistance and trade. All you have to do is work in one specific
industry during a specific period of time and you are eligible to
receive benefits.
The fact is, workers in the textile industry and in other industries
as well often lose their jobs for reasons having nothing to do with
trade. Often workers might lose employment because of

[[Page S4753]]

new advances in technology, changes in the national economy, their
company is not well run, or because of improvements in productivity.
For all of those, we have programs on the books to help those
dislocated workers, albeit dislocated unrelated to trade.

The textile industry in particular has seen tremendous changes
because of new technology, such as the introduction of new computer-
assisted design techniques that have often transformed many labor-
intensive jobs into more high-tech workplaces over the past decade.
While it is certainly regrettable that these new developments in
technology mean some workers lose their jobs, we should try to help
these workers and help their families at the same time and do it as
much as we can through other types of assistance. They are not workers,
though, who have lost their jobs because of trade.
Furthermore, I do not know on what basis we can simply give
Government benefits to workers in one industry but not to workers in
other industries. Do not workers in industries other than textiles also
deserve the same treatment?
The bottom line is the purpose of trade adjustment assistance. It is
designed to help workers who are adversely affected solely because of
trade.
This amendment would signal a radical transformation of trade
adjustment assistance into another welfare program with no connection
to trade. It would also sharply boost the cost of the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Program. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this
provision alone would cost over $700 million in a 10-year period. That
would nearly double the cost of the entire Trade Adjustment Assistance
Program with just the one provision: The provision put forth by Senator
Hollings.
I regret that any American loses his or her job. There is nobody who
wants to see an American lose their job. I have had the opportunity
twice in my industrial employment to lose jobs, once in 1960 and once
in 1971.
In 1971, I drew unemployment compensation for a short period of time.
I know what it is like to be dislocated from a job, but I was not
dislocated because of trade. There were other programs that helped me
during that period of time, and those programs are available for people
because we know that losing a job is a terrible blow to an individual.
It affects the entire family. But there are other programs designed to
help these individuals.
We should not take money away from other Federal programs and from
other pressing needs in our country to pay benefits under a trade
adjustment assistance program to workers just in one industry, and
particularly when they are not affected by trade.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. President, while I have time remaining, I wish to speak
generally--how much time do I have Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the underlying
legislation.
When talking about trade promotion authority, opponents seem to love
to use the term ``fast track'' because I think they believe that this
sounds somewhat sneaky or somewhat uncontrollable. That is a shame. It
is a shame because the term ``fast track'' does not really reflect what
this legislation is all about and the procedures that are connected
with giving the President the authority to negotiate trade agreements.
The term we use in this legislation, ``trade promotion authority,''
is more accurate. In reality, trade promotion authority is a contract.
It is a contract between the President and the Congress. When the
Congress extends trade promotion authority to the President, the
Congress agrees to authorize the President to negotiate trade
agreements and to do it on behalf of 280 million Americans.
Why do we have this contract with the President of the United States?
We have it because there is only one person who can speak on behalf of
280 million people in international affairs, and that is our chief
diplomat, the Chief Executive of our country, the President of the
United States. It is that simple. We cannot have 535 people in Congress
negotiating with other nations. It would not ever work.
If we are going to succeed at the negotiating table, our trading
partners need to know that the person to whom they are speaking has
authority to negotiate.
Trade promotion authority not only gives that authority to negotiate,
but it gives a great deal of credibility to our President at these
tables. That is what the trade promotion authority contract between the
Congress and the President is all about.
Let me be clear. The President does not go into trade negotiations
without guidance and without always being reminded that the
constitutional power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce rests
with the Congress of the United States. Through this trade promotion
authority bill, the Congress gives very careful direction to the
President, with detailed lists of instructions. The Congress tells the
President--we do that through this legislation--if he follows these
directions we give him, if he fulfills the details of consultation
procedures laid out in this bill, we will do three things.
First, we will actually consider the agreement. We will not have
these agreements sitting around collecting dust on Capitol Hill. The
Congress will actually pick up this agreement and we will consider it.
Now, that does not mean we will agree with the bill, it does not mean
we would pass the bill, but we are committed to considering it.
Secondly, we will not change the agreement before we consider it. We
authorize the President to negotiate. He follows our directions. He
consults with the Members of Congress through the process. We know what
is in the negotiated instrument. Now we will consider it without
changing it.
Third, we will limit debate on the agreement. We will not tie it up
in endless debate in the Congress. That is the contract we have with
the President of the United States, an agreement between the President
and the Congress that if he will do certain things for us, we will do
certain things.
Why do we do it that way? We do it because it empowers us as a
Congress, it empowers us as a nation. Without trade promotion
authority, the President has no clear direction from Congress. He can
basically negotiate anything he wants without consulting with Congress,
but he will not do it in a credible way with the other nations that are
with him because they are not apt to agree if they are not certain that
a final agreement will be considered by Congress No. 1, and not changed
by Congress No. 2, and actually voted upon.
Congress can selfishly observe its constitutional power because we
keep a watchful eye on the President of the United States over many
months, sometimes over many years, in the process of the negotiations
to reach an agreement.
Trade promotion authority also empowers us as a nation of 280 million
people. Our foreign trading partners know the President speaks for the
Nation in international trade and that he has the backing of Congress.
With this knowledge, they can be sure any agreement concluded with the
President will be considered by Congress without being amended to
death. That empowers our Nation to get the best bargain we can at the
negotiating table.
What happens if the President does not fulfill his end of the
bargain? What if he does not follow Congress's direction or fails to
consult with the Congress as the law requires? Then he does not get the
benefit of agreement. The trade promotion authority bill itself
contains procedural enforcement mechanisms to ensure the President does
not overstep his agreement with the Congress. Trade promotion authority
procedures are very carefully balanced in a thoughtful way for the
President and the Congress to work together to advance the economic
interests of our Nation. It is a procedure that has worked well for
over 50 years, and on the basis of this legislation, trade promotion
authority has worked well for 25 years. It is also a procedure that
since 1995 our Nation has gone too long without. One hundred thirty
agreements around the world have been negotiated. Our President has not
had the credibility to be at the table. He has not been at the table.
We have been at the table of three bilateral agreements but otherwise
not. So the interests of

[[Page S4754]]

280 million Americans have never been represented, never been
protected, and the rest of the world is going to move on.

Prior to 5 or 6 years ago, the rest of the world used to wait for the
United States to take the first step. We have an opportunity now by
passing this legislation to put our Nation once again in the lead. So
that is why I urge my colleagues to work our way through the rest of
these amendments and to work with Senator Baucus and me to pass this
bill and help get our Nation's trade back on track.
How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. There is also a lot of benefit in trade promotion
authority and trade agreements for the American farmers and ranchers,
and it is beneficial to us because our farmers and ranchers are
competitive and technologically advanced in the world. The United
States has long been a world leader in agricultural exports. Dollar for
dollar, the United States exports more meat than steel, more corn than
cosmetics, more bakery products than motor boats, more fruits and
vegetables than household appliances. One in three acres of
agricultural production of the United States is exported.
In 2000, the U.S. agricultural community exported $51 billion in
products and supported at least 750,000 American workers. With 96
percent of the world's population living outside the United States,
there is a huge market for food products of American farmers and
ranchers.
In the absence of trade promotion authority, other countries have
entered into trade agreements that have driven foreign consumers from
the U.S. agricultural market.
Burger King restaurants in Chile buy potatoes from Canada. Canada's
free trade agreement with Chile gives their farmers eased access to the
Chilean market while American farm products are subject to high tariffs
that drive up the price to the consumer. So, consequently, we do not
sell to Chile.
Trade promotion authority will expand existing markets, open new
markets for American food products, and allow our farmers and ranchers
to better compete, boosting our exports. Previous trade agreements
demonstrate benefits to American farmers and ranchers.
U.S. agricultural exports to our NAFTA partners have increased $4
billion since that agreement went into effect 8 years ago. Under the
United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement, U.S. agricultural exports
doubled. Canada is the No. 2 market for our agricultural exports,
buying $7.6 billion in the year 2000. Under the North American Free
Trade Agreement, our agricultural exports to Mexico have nearly
doubled, making it our third largest agricultural market buying $6.5
billion in the year 2000.
U.S. pork producers credit the North American Free Trade Agreement
with their 130-percent increase in market share in Mexico between 1994
and the year 2000. The United States beef and veal exports to Canada
increased 26 percent in volume between 1990 and 2000 and increased five
fold with Mexico from 1993 to the year 2000. The sale of United States
corn to Canada increased more than 127 percent in volume between 1990
and 2000, and exports to Mexico increased by nearly 18 times between
1993 and 2000.

Mexico voluntarily chose to accelerate its market opening for corn
under the North American Free Trade Agreement to provide lower cost
food for its consumer. Canada imported 15 percent more soybeans from
the United States between 1990 and 2000. Mexican imports of United
States soybeans doubled from 1993 to the year 2000.
I would also like to comment on the seriousness of defeating the Byrd
(3447) amendment on the Congressional Oversight Group. The Byrd
amendment will curtail the authorities on international trade within
the Congress of the United States; those people who have been given
authority, the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means, will be
curtailed. It will curtail our oversight of these agreements. We need
to work toward that. I am also asking my colleague, for the sake of
maintaining the authority of an oversight of the Senate Finance
Committee, that we defeat the Byrd amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for
15 minutes.
Mr. REID. If the Senator will withhold for a unanimous consent
request.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield.

Amendment No. 3450 Withdrawn

Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Byrd, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment numbered 3450 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be recognized
following Senator Dorgan, and that he be recognized for up to 45
minutes, and that Senator Cantwell be recognized following that for 20
minutes. If there is a Republican Senator who seeks recognition, that
Senator would have the right to follow Senator Dorgan. We will
alternate if the Republicans want to; if they do not, we have the order
set up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana.

Amendment No. 3470

Ms. LANDRIEU. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its
immediate consideration, amendment No. 3470.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to make sure the unanimous consent
agreement is clear. Following Senator Harkin, if a Republican wishes to
speak, they will be able to do. Prior to that, the order is in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand a procedure is established
that amendment No. 3470 will come up for a vote later in the afternoon
before we have final passage on the measure before the Senate. I rise
to speak for the allotted 15 minutes as arranged under a previous
consent agreement.
Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that I hope will be voted
on favorably. I suggest it would help the underlying bill. I will
certainly support the work that Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus on
our side have done to bring this important bill to the floor. I have
been supportive of the overarching concept and many of the details of
the bill.
I am proud to say our entire Louisiana delegation--both Senators,
Senator Breaux and myself, as well as all seven Members of our House
delegation--have been very pro trade, and for good reasons: Not only
because we think it is important for our Nation but for our own State
of Louisiana that has positioned itself historically as a great trading
hub.
Although there are some disadvantages in the short term, and there
are some jobs and industries that may be temporarily negatively
affected, the long-term trends for the State of Louisiana and, frankly,
for this Nation are very positive.
I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. I support their efforts
to streamline some of our trade policies, recognizing there are
legitimate concerns about environmental and labor issues. The
underlying bill has addressed, if not perfectly--has attempted to
address in good spirit and in good, strong rules and regulations--those
efforts. This could be a continuing work in progress. We in Louisiana
feel very strongly about that.
The amendment is not an attempt to undermine or scuttle this grand
compromise and great package. It is an attempt to perfect and modify it
for a group of workers who have been hard hit by something that is not
in line with this free trade bill; that is, when the President just a
few months ago issued a 201 ruling to put tariffs on raw steel that
comes into the United States--which I vigorously objected to; so did
the senior Senator from Louisiana and many Senators--and what

[[Page S4755]]

has happened since that administrative decision to put this tariff in,
in hopes of helping other areas of the Nation and other Senators and
their States that produce this steel, States such as West Virginia,
Kentucky, and Maryland.
I can understand these efforts to try to build consensus. The bottom
line is it has hurt our maritime industry. I will give you some facts
and figures. My amendment seeks to simply expand the trade adjustment
assistance for not only workers who might lose their jobs because they
have either moved overseas or have lost their jobs because of a flood
of imports, but also this small group of maritime workers, about
38,000, for a limited period of time who were losing their jobs because
of the lack of imports coming in because of this 20- to 30-percent
tariff.
Again, I disagreed with the President's decision. I continue to
disagree with that decision. My amendment does not seek to overturn it.
I am just trying to help workers who are directly affected by that
decision in an effort to make the whole situation a bit more perfect
for the workers from the steel-producing States we are trying to help,
as well as to try to give some necessary and urgent relief to maritime
workers who find themselves on the other side of that decision because
they are losing their jobs because steel is not coming in to the port
of New Orleans.
We have lost tons and tons, in just a couple of months, of steel
coils, steel plates and sheets, steel bars, tin plates, and stainless
steel bars that are coming into the ports of Louisiana, primarily the
ports of New Orleans.
We are not the only port that has been hurt very badly. The Port of
Houston, the ports of the Great Lakes--we have ports all over the
Nation, so 38,000 maritime workers literally are having to pick up an
unemployment check instead of a paycheck because of the decision that
was made.
I tried to stop the decision but it was an administrative decision.
My amendment does not seek to overturn it. My amendment only says,
since it has been a consensus of the administration and Congress to
help the steelworkers and special parts of our Nation, let's also, by
this small amendment--that only costs $10 million and it sunsets after
4-plus years--help the maritime workers.
Under the current bill, they are not entitled to benefits because
they are not being affected by a flood of imports. Their jobs are not
necessarily being moved overseas. They just do not have the steel to
bring on to the wharves because of this tariff.
It does not cost us very much money in the scheme of things, but it
will help thousands of workers in Louisiana, and many thousands of
workers temporarily, until this situation can get worked out.
That is the essence of my amendment. It is about 8,000 jobs that are
at risk in New Orleans, a major port in our Nation. It is about 7,500
jobs in the Port of Houston, the President's home State. It is about
5,000 jobs, approximately, in California, in the Los Angeles Port; in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware--Mr. President, your own State--
combined, about 4,400 jobs that could be at risk; in the Great Lakes
and Upper Mississippi, about 2,000 jobs. It is estimated for smaller
ports around the Nation, it is about 10,000 jobs.
Why? Because steel is one of the major imports, until this tariff was
placed 2 months ago, that was coming into our Nation. While it caused
great heartburn in the steel-producing areas of our State, it was
actually very good business for our ports.
Suffice it to say we cannot go back and overturn everything, but we
certainly can vote today to help maritime workers directly affected by
this decision. Again, it only costs us $10 million. It sunsets in 4-
plus years. It is a minor help that we can give to people who show up
at the docks every morning and stay late almost every day. They have
children to send to college. They have mortgages on their houses. They
have other bills and responsibilities, maybe an elderly person who is
at home. These are hard-working Americans and because of action taken
in Washington they have to now pick up an unemployment check instead of
a paycheck.
These are not welfare recipients; these are people who have worked
10, 15, 25, 30 years at what I would consider--as would most
everybody--hard labor.
The Presiding Officer is familiar with this picture because he comes
from a port State. This is a New Orleans dock but it could be anyplace
in America where you have stevedors and longshoremen loading and
unloading ships. This is one of the great benefits of trade because
these, in many cases, are unionized jobs, very high-paying jobs with a
lot of protection for these workers. This is dangerous business. This
goes on in America every day.
There are thousands and thousands of these workers. What you will not
see in this picture is a welfare recipient. What you see is a worker,
many years working on the docks. Because of this tariff and the bill we
are discussing, a lot of these guys cannot pick up a paycheck--or women
are now working on the docks. My amendment seeks to give them some
small relief--not upset the bill, not turn the compromise on its head,
but to give us some relief.

I hope when we have an opportunity to vote later this afternoon we
will get a good, bipartisan vote on this small amendment that will help
bring us some relief.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has just under 5 minutes.
Ms. LANDRIEU. If I could, I would like to speak for a minute about
another problem that has arisen because of this 30-percent tariff on
steel that is not related to my amendment. While I have a minute, I
wish to speak about our fabrication industry.
Senators are now very familiar with me coming to the floor to try to
explain the importance of the oil and gas industry to our Nation. We
talked a lot about this in our energy debate, but I need to make this
point today on this trade bill.
This tariff is very hurtful to the maritime workers who I am trying
to help in a very modest, but meaningful way so they can qualify and
get their TAA benefits under this trade bill. I also want to bring to
the attention of this body--not that I have a solution for it because I
cannot figure out an amendment that would actually help this; if I
could I would offer it--what a great harm this tariff has also brought
to a great industry in south Louisiana; that is, in the manufacturing
business, using a lot of steel to help build our boats and platforms
and equipment that help us get oil and gas safely out of the ground in
the gulf and bring it to the shore to try to help light up this
beautiful Chamber and everybody in New York and California and Illinois
and in Louisiana--the whole country.
We have a very vibrant fabrication industry, as you can imagine, with
industries such as McDermott Industries and Gulf Island Fabricators.
These are large fabricators. I am here to say, after contacting many of
them over the last several months, that some of them will absolutely go
out of business and we are then going to lose hundreds of jobs, if not
thousands, in south Louisiana, for the simple reason that because of
the cheaper steel that they were importing from other places in the
world, bringing it to Louisiana through the mighty Gulf of Mexico or
other large bodies of water to south Louisiana to build these great
platforms, we cannot now compete against the same sort of manufacturing
in places all over the world.
Our delegation that is voting for trade--and we are happy to vote for
the trade bill--has been caught in crosswinds, you might say, because
of an administrative decision about trade. As a result, we are losing
not only jobs in our maritime industry, which this trade bill should be
helping to protect, but also we are getting hurt because of our lack of
ability now to compete with other manufacturers in other parts of the
Nation to get our oil and gas out of the ground.
Now we are in a situation of having fabrication done offshore to
float these tremendous platforms and rigs into the gulf. Our workers do
not get the benefit of these jobs. Our oil and gas is taken out of our
ground, right off of our shore, and 100 percent of the proceeds of the
taxes paid come to the Federal Government. So Louisianians don't get
the taxes from the royalties, we don't get the jobs making the
platforms, we get beat up constantly because we are producing oil and
gas, and my maritime workers have to pick up an unemployment check
instead of a paycheck.

[[Page S4756]]

If I sound as if I am complaining a little bit, I mean to try to lay
out this problem. Again, I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. I
support the trade bill, but I ask them for their assistance in helping
a few thousand maritime workers who are not being hard hit by the trade
bill they are recommending, which I support, but they are being hard
hit because of an administration decision that is keeping imports down,
therefore putting maritime workers out of business.
When I can meet with Senator Breaux and get a solution for our
fabricators, I will most certainly be bringing up that amendment,
though not to this bill. But I will get as much relief as I can for
good industries, good companies that have produced good jobs,
industries that are going to be hurt, and I will ask the President as
well as the leadership in the House and the Senate, both Democrats and
Republicans, to come up with some potential solution--cost effective
for the taxpayer--to our problem in Louisiana.
People in Louisiana deserve a fair share and an opportunity to work
hard.
I yield any remaining time.

Amendment No. 3461

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New
Jersey is recognized.
Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, I rise to discuss amendment No. 3461 which was
offered on my behalf, and on behalf of Senator Dodd, Senator Stabenow,
and others by Senator Reid on Monday and set aside. It is my
expectation this amendment will be voted on at the expiration of the 30
hours, as required by cloture. But I wanted to make sure I had an
opportunity to discuss the merits of this and the importance of this,
which I consider quite significant.
I offer this amendment to protect the role of Congress and elected
State and local officials in determining the nature and scope of
significant public services. It is one thing for Congress to sacrifice
its own prerogatives in the development of trade policy, as we will
likely do today with the passage of trade promotion authority; however,
in my view, it goes much too far to delegate constitutional
responsibilities of elected officials when it comes to determining what
are public services and what significant public services should be
managed in the public sector.
My amendment stands for the simple proposition that trade agreements
should not be used to privatize public services--public services duly
directed by constitutionally authorized actors of our Nation's
democratic processes. Specifically, the amendment would establish as a
principal negotiating objective that trade agreements should not
include a commitment by the United States to privatize significant
public services such as national security, Social Security, public
health and safety, and education.
It is very simple. Before I discuss the details of my amendment, let
me say that I agree with the objectives of the sponsors of the
underlying bill that we should seek ways to expand trade in services. I
know firsthand that this objective can create jobs and economic
benefit. In fact, I spent the better part of 30 years of my life
building an international service business in banking and understand
the need for barriers to be broken down. There are many that limit the
expansion of American enterprise abroad.
It is also true that the American service sector is and will continue
to be a vital part of our economy. It is one that is growing
substantially. It is a substantial part of our international activity.
In my view, we need to aggressively foster and promote that growth.
It promises long-term benefits for all Americans.
That means we should be looking for ways to open accounts. I commend
those efforts as a part of this bill.
Having said that, while there are many potential benefits to forging
trade agreements designed to increase trade and services, there are
also risks. That is what my amendment is about.
One of the risks is that those agreements will be misused, either
directly or through unintended implementation requirements.
My amendment is designed to reduce that risk so that trade agreements
will do what they are supposed to do and won't be used in a particular
way: the risk that they will commit the United States to privatizing
key public services outside of legally constituted constitutional
processes.
Some of my colleagues may well be unaware that such a risk exists.
After all, trade agreements are supposed to be about promoting economic
activity. They weren't conceived to overrule democratic processes and
decisions about the provision of essential public services--things such
as protecting our airports and airline security, things that we have
chosen in the democratic process to move forward in the public arena.
Yet trade agreements can do just that. There is ample reason to be
concerned that privatization of significant public services could well
be on the table in future negotiations.
In fact, right now negotiations are already underway in the process
of establishing new agreements with respect to trade and services.
Those negotiations may well lead to agreements under which services
traditionally administered by Federal, State, and local governments
would be on the chopping block.
Under such agreements, foreign investors might be able to challenge
public policies that provide certain services through government
entities. Such foreign interests could argue that these policies
discriminate against them and represent an unlawful trade barrier. In
fact, some international agreements are already being interpreted that
way, and others are being designed for that purpose.
Consider what is happening in bilateral negotiations between the
United States and Chile.
In 1981, Chile decided to privatize its public pension system; that
is, its equivalent of Social Security. Under the privatized system,
Chilean workers are now required to invest their pension dollars with
private financial institutions. Unfortunately, Chile's experience with
the privatization of Social Security has, in many respects, proved
problematic. Many Chilean workers have seen the value of their
investments collapse. And many Chilean political leaders now believe
the only way to protect the retirement security of Chilean families is
to return to the earlier public system based on guaranteed benefits--
more like we have in the United States.
U.S. negotiators are encouraging Chile to keep their system
privatized. As a result, the financial security of Chilean retirees and
their national retirement policy may depend on international trade
negotiations rather than the political democratic processes reflecting
the wishes of the Chilean people.

Think about that for a moment and consider how Americans would feel
if trade negotiations ended up deciding the fate of Social Security in
America. Imagine trade negotiators setting that investment policy for
the Social Security Administration. What if foreign interests were
demanding that the United States open up our Social Security system to
foreign financial firms or mandate privatization outside the democratic
process? Imagine that Chilean, Russian, or German negotiators argued
that it was a restraint of trade for Social Security to limit its
investments to U.S Government securities rather than opening up the
system to privatized accounts.
I speak as one who strongly opposes that move with the American
system privatizing Social Security. It would lead to a deep cut in
guaranteed benefits and reduce the financial security of American
seniors. But I think the most important issue as it relates to this
debate, regardless of your views on privatization, is that Americans
would be outraged if that were accomplished through trade negotiations
as opposed to a debate on the floor of the Senate and the House of
Representatives and a discussion with the American people.
The future of Social Security is too important to be decided by
anyone other than the American people.
Social Security is not the only area of public service provision that
concerns me. Let's take a look at another example a little less
dramatic.
The European Union has now proposed that the United States make new
commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services to allow
foreign firms to gain greater access to the U.S. water services market.
Many municipalities across the United States have long felt that the
provision of water services is an important governmental
responsibility.

[[Page S4757]]

Some of the localities in New Jersey that I represent have chosen to
have it administered by private companies. Others have chosen to retain
the nature of a public provision of water services.
The point is that the people have spoken. Should municipalities
privatize their water supplies? I am not sure. I am certainly not
convinced that one answer is appropriate for all situations. But one
thing I am sure about is that these decisions should be made by local
elected officials who understand local circumstances and local values,
and who are accountable to the local taxpayers and local voters. These
decisions to privatize should not be dictated by unelected, distant
trade bureaucrats.

Let me give another example. This involves a company that has been in
the news lately, a company named Enron.
The Government of Argentina contracted with a division of Enron to
provide water and sewer services in Buenos Aires. Enron did not do such
a good job, to put it mildly. For a while, the water provided was
contaminated by toxic bacteria. As a result, some 500,000 people were
told not to drink the water for well over a month.
In the end, the Argentinian Government canceled its contract with
Enron. Now Enron is suing, under trade agreements, that there is a
basis for a $550 million settlement for them against the Argentinian
people because they did a bad job.
I am telling my colleagues, this is an important issue. The provision
of public services is a decision which our democratic processes should
be deciding. This matter should be decided by democratically elected
governments, not unelected trade bureaucrats.
There is a long list of public services that could well be privatized
and put up for bid by foreign companies. These include everything from
health services for veterans, to State colleges and universities, to
immigration control, to afterschool programs, to police officers. All
of these could be threatened by a trade agreement, and a lot of people
are worried about that.
That is why I want this amendment to be seriously considered by my
colleagues on the Senate floor, really to establish a trade objective.
Madam President, I ask, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair.
The American Public Health Association is concerned about the
privatization of some parts of the Medicare Program and medical
services for the poor. The American Council on Education and the
Council for Higher Education Accreditation have voiced deep concerns
about the GATT negotiations. As they said in a statement, higher
education is supposed to serve the public interest and should not be a
commodity.
Yet the threat posed to education by privatization through trade
agreements is very real. Under some prospective trade rules, States
could be barred from subsidizing State universities, using the argument
that such subsidies put private universities at a competitive
disadvantage. I do not think that is what the American people want
trade negotiations to accomplish. They do not want unelected trade
bureaucrats setting our policy with regard to public services.
Let me return to the explanation of the amendment. The amendment is
very simple and states:

A principal negotiating objective of the United States is
to ensure that trade agreements do not [do not] include a
commitment by the United States to privatize significant
public services, including services related to (i) national
security; (ii) Social Security; (iii) public health and
safety; and (iv) education.

It then defines the term ``privatize'' to mean:

. . . the transfer of responsibility for, or administration
of, a government function from a government entity to a
private entity.

And that is it. That is the entire amendment.
As it should be clear from its language, the premise of the amendment
is that there are some types of public services that are so important
that decisions about them should be made democratically and should not
be delegated to an international body. Our amendment highlights, in
particular, those four areas. There may well be others.

There may be some who would argue we ought to privatize some parts of
our national security system, such as those who objected when Congress
recently federalized our airport security system. I disagree. But,
again, we ought to have that argument here on the floor of the Senate--
democratically chosen processes, constitutionally established.
You could say that about many other types of issues.
Trade negotiators should not privatize and preempt the decisionmaking
of Congress and the President. This amendment is less about
privatization than it is about democracy. It is one thing to enter into
international agreements, promote private investment, even if that
means limiting our congressional prerogatives, but it is an entirely
different matter to tie our own hands in deciding upon important public
services, which go to the heart of what government is about in the
first place.
I appreciate this opportunity to speak on this important, relevant,
and germane amendment. In my mind, this bill already delegates too much
congressional responsibility and authority. I hope my colleagues will
support this amendment and protect our right to make a democratic
choice about what the public services are that are privatized and that
as we move forward we make those decisions through the debate process
and discussion with the American people, not through trade
negotiations, not through bureaucrats, who are unelected officials.
So that is what the amendment is about. I believe strongly that this
is an amendment my colleagues should support, and I hope they will.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, Senator Harkin has agreed to yield 5
minutes to me. I know Senator Dorgan is next on the list. He has agreed
to let me come in at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I believe, by unanimous consent, I was
to have been recognized following the presentation by Senator Corzine.
If that is the case--I believe it is the case.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Pennsylvania, provided I am recognized following his presentation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. SPECTER are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, it is quite clear to me from the cloture
vote yesterday that the Senate is going to pass trade promotion
authority.
I think it is a shame that we have not had a more thoughtful debate
on this issue. So I would like to take this opportunity to describe why
this issue is and will continue to be controversial.
Trade promotion authority is a euphemism for fast track. Fast track
is just what the name implies--a process that involves a rush to
judgment. It's like fast food, implying a lack of preparation, a quick
and easy meal that in the end turns out to be bad for you. Fast track
trade authority allows the Administration to go negotiate a trade
agreement, and bring it back to the Senate without the ability of any
Member to offer a single amendment.
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution states that the Congress
shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That is
what was written in Philadelphia one hot summer with George Washington
sitting in the presiding chair, Ben Franklin over to his left, and
Mason, and Madison. They decided Congress shall have the power to
regulate commerce with foreign nations--not the trade ambassador, not
the President, but the Congress.
The Congress has decided in recent years that to delegate this
constitutional responsibility to trade negotiators. These negotiators
go to places like Doha, Qatar, and negotiate agreements in secret. They
bring these

[[Page S4758]]

agreements back to Congress, and say: Here is the agreement. Take it or
leave it in total; no amendments because you are not allowed to offer
any. That is what fast track is all about.
If you want a good example of why fast track is a bad deal, you can
look to our experience with the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Our
trade negotiators went to Canada armed with fast track. They negotiated
a trade agreement with Canada, and developed a secret side agreement
which they disclosed only 2 years later to the Congress. That side
agreement effectively traded away the interests of America's family
farmers. Our farmers have been hurt badly as a result of it. We
couldn't do a thing about it because when that agreement came back to
the Congress, no one was able to offer one single amendment.
I voted against the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Had I been able
to offer an amendment, I might have been able to fix it. The family
farmers who have been victimized by this agreement might not have been
hurt nearly as badly. But no amendments were in order. No one in
Congress could offer any amendment at any time. That is what fast track
is about.

Since we are debating trade and our trade policy, I want to use a
chart to show what has happened in trade. My colleagues stood up
yesterday and said: You need to understand how important this is to
America. You need to understand all the new jobs we are creating with
these trade agreements. Well, count me in as somebody who supports
trade. I am big for trade. Expanded trade is terrific. The more the
better but only as long as it is fair. If it is not fair, our country
should have the backbone to stand up and say, no, the trade we demand
and expect is reciprocal trade, fair trade.
Fast track trade agreements have created runaway trade deficits. Here
is what happens on the trade deficits. From 1991 to 2000, our trade
deficit has gone from $65 billion to $436 billion. Our country suffered
a recession in 2001, so the deficit declined just a bit last year, but
the trend is clear.
The fact is, this is by far the highest trade deficit in human
history. Every single day, 7 days a week, our country buys more than $1
billion in goods from abroad in excess of what we are able to sell
abroad--over $1 billion a day every single day, racked up as a deficit.
I ask those who support this fast track free trade strategy, do you
think this works? Where did you pick up your economics? Was there some
textbook I missed along the way that makes you think that this trend is
a favorable one? I don't think so. This is not working. This is a
failure. This is a massive failure. Our trade strategy is drowning
America in red ink. Yet we have Senators coming to the floor saying:
Give us more of this.
Where is this red ink coming from? Prior to negotiating an agreement
with Mexico, we had a small trade surplus with Mexico. We have turned
that now into a huge deficit. Prior to negotiating a trade agreement
with Canada, we had a modest deficit. Now we have turned that into a
very large deficit. We have a very large and growing trade deficit with
China, $70 billion a year plus--and a very large, abiding, growing
trade deficit with Japan.
What does all that mean in terms of real people? We have Senators who
come here and argue theory. They are out of touch with working people.
When you work in the Congress, you take a shower in the morning and
then put on a dark suit. What we are doing in trade policy is dealing
with the jobs of the people who work hard all day and then have to
shower at the end of the workday. It is their jobs that are sent
elsewhere as a result of this legislation.
I gave a speech in the Senate some years ago. I told the stories of
some real folks who have been affected by unfair trade. The other day
we had a press conference on the steps of the Senate, with working men
and women that continue to lose their jobs. The stories don't change.
The Levi corporation decided they can't make Levis in the United
States anymore. It is cheaper to make Levis in countries where you can
pay people 50 cents an hour. Or Fruit of the Loom, making shorts, men's
shorts, they just ship those to a plant where they can pay somebody 40
cents an hour.
It is one thing to lose your shirt, another to lose your shorts. OK,
it's a bad joke, and this is no laughing matter. Not when you have
companies decide to move their plants to where they can pay people 40
cents an hour or, better yet, pay them 24 cents an hour. You know we
have products on our store shelves made by 12-year-old kids who worked
12 hours a day and were paid 12 cents an hour. We all know that.
We have fought for over a century for the right of workers to
organize, the right to work in a safe workplace, the right to say that
it is wrong to put children who are 10 and 12 years old down in coal
mines or in industrial plants, the right to a reasonable minimum wage.
Those who support fast track ultimately are allowing corporations to
pole vault over all of that, and to move jobs overseas where they don't
have to be bothered with decent wages and working conditions. This is
ultimately just about corporate profits.
We have 8.6 million people today who are looking for work. If you are
one of those people, your personal unemployment number is 100 percent.
You, at some point, had to come home and tell your wife and your
children: I am sorry, I lost my job and I don't know what I am going to
do next.
The Economic Policy Institute has calculated that, as a result of the
most recent trade agreements--Canada, NAFTA, and the WTO--roughly 3
million jobs have been lost in this country. So when you have 8.6
million people out of work, and 3 million of them have been displaced
by trade, should we be diving headfirst into new trade agreements?
When NAFTA was negotiated, we were told that Mexico would specialize
in low-wage and low-skilled jobs, and that those products would benefit
U.S. consumers. That may have happened to some extent, but we have lost
a lot of good jobs for working people in this country. The three
largest imports into this country from Mexico are automobiles,
automobile parts, and electronics. They are all jobs of high-skilled
workers with high-skill wages that were displaced in this country.
Borg Warner had a transmission plant employing 800 people in Muncie,
IN. The jobs paid $17 an hour. Good jobs. Those jobs don't exist there
anymore. They are in Mexico. Atlas Crankshaft, owned by Cummings
Engine, literally put its manufacturing plant on trucks and moved it
from Ohio to Mexico. So those 200 jobs have gone south, looking for
lower wages. The Abbott Cooperation, which manufactures wires harnesses
for Whirlpool Appliances, and their 117 jobs, were sent to Mexico. A
metals plant in Warren, MI, closed down. They put their equipment on
trucks and moved to Mexico--26 jobs gone south.
Some say: You know, Senator Dorgan, that is life. That is the way the
new economy is. That is the way this world works. It is a new global
economy and you don't understand it. You are one of these xenophobic
isolationists who can't see over the horizon and cannot understand the
new economic day.
Well, I am certainly not suggesting that we retract on the global
economy. That is a fact of life; it is here and now. The question for
this Congress is, What are the rules? The rules have not kept pace with
globalization. As these plants close and move jobs to Mexico, or
Indonesia, or Sri Lanka, or other countries around the world, shouldn't
Congress begin debating what the rules are of free trade and
globalization? Because the rules have not kept pace with the times.
Those who want to take advantage of having no rules are those who
want to make profits by deciding they want to trade American jobs, and
all the restrictions that come with it, for jobs elsewhere for pennies
an hour, where they don't have to worry about polluting the water and
air, and they can do it with impunity. They can hire as many kids as
they want. They don't have to worry about a safe workplace because
there are no rules and regulations on any of that.
The global economy has moved forward without sufficient rules. This
Senate, instead of debating fast track, ought to be debating the rules
of globalization. We are not allowed to do that. Do you know why? Those
making big profits out of the existing system don't want us to do that.
That is the last thing they want us to talk about.

It would be nice if the proponents of fast track would take the time
to talk

[[Page S4759]]

to a few of the many people whose jobs were determined to be relatively
unimportant in the scheme of international trade. I am not talking
about people who make buggy whips--a product for which we have no
additional need. I am talking about people who made decent wages
working real jobs in factories that produce good products.
When the rules are not fair, it is up to the Senate to stand up for
American workers. They will not do it and amendment after amendment on
this so called fast-track bill has gone down. Why is that? Because this
was like a big truck with a tarp over it, buttoned up long ago and
driving through this Chamber, like the trucks that will come in after
June 30 from Mexico.
Incidentally, as a result of NAFTA and some flawed analysis, this
Administration is set on June 30 to allow Mexican trucks to enter our
country for long hauls. Everyone here knows there isn't a ghost of a
chance that this is going to be safe for American drivers. Inspection
sites don't exist. The standards for Mexican long-haul trucks are not
enforced. I ask you to look at investigative reports on it and ask
yourself: Do you want your family driving next to a long-haul truck
that has been driven for 24 hours by somebody who doesn't have a
logbook and hasn't had an adequate safety inspection? I guarantee that
will happen here after June 30 of this year. Why? Because we are not
able to debate these issues under fast track.
The Senate is once again saying to our trade ambassador to go
negotiate trade agreements in secret, and to forget about what the
Senate might think. Our current trade ambassador, Bob Zoellick, is a
man I personally like, bright as a whip. We disagree on some things and
agree on some other things. But it is just plain wrong for the Senate
to give this kind of authority away, and to abrogate its
responsibility. And I hate to think of the likely consequences.
Mr. Zoellick said this on November 26, 2001:

In Doha, Qatar, antidumping laws in the U.S. could be
discussed as a new trade round gets underway.

In effect, our trade ambassador has put our antidumping laws on the
table to be traded away. We have already lost section 22, and section
301 has been weakened, and now the trade ambassador is talking about
giving away the laws that prohibit dumping in our marketplace and
injuring our producers and workers. If we trade away our antidumping
laws away, there will be no protection against unfair trade. None.
When on Earth will this Congress learn? Have we not had enough
experience with this nonsense? How high do our trade deficits have to
go? If it doubles again, maybe then they will think there is a problem?
We can make the case that a fiscal policy deficit is money we owe to
ourselves. We cannot make that case with the trade deficit. This is
money we owe to other countries. We will repay this someday with a
lower standard of living in this country. That is inevitable.
Our negotiators just keep handing us these bad trade agreements, and
our trade deficits keep skyrocketing. Will Rogers once said that the
United States of America has never lost a war and never won a
conference. He surely must have been speaking of our trade negotiators
because with United States-Canada, with NAFTA, with WTO, with GATT, our
trade negotiators have taken 15 minutes and have wilted and folded
under the onslaught of pressure from both corporations and other
countries, and we end up with rules of trade that are fundamentally
unfair to our workers, our farmers, and our businesses.
There is no debate about that in this Chamber. There is a relentless
chant of the type you find on street corners about free trade, free
trade, fast track, new jobs, when all the evidence tells us that we
have had a disastrous experience with trade. We have paved the road by
which U.S. companies can seek a lower wage almost anywhere in the
world.
Did any of my colleagues see the story the other day in the
Washington Post about the young woman who was working in a toy factory
and died from sheer exhaustion? She had been working 16-hour days for
two months without a day off.
I have been in a number of countries with abysmal working conditions.
We know there are a couple hundred million kids who are being employed
around the world. Some are locked in garages, in basements.
I held a hearing in Congress about child labor, and heard testimony
about young kids in India making carpets. They had had their fingertips
laced with gunpowder and set on fire so the burns would scar. Then when
these young children in these large plants would stick themselves with
needles while making carpets, it would not hurt, and they could keep on
working. Do we want those products on the store shelves of Pittsburgh
or Fargo or Los Angeles or Dallas? Is that free trade? Is that fair
trade? Does anybody here care about that?
Do my colleagues know how many people we have in the Department of
Commerce working on enforcement of trade laws so we make sure these
trade laws are fair? China, a country that has somewhere around a $70
billion trade surplus with us, because they send us all their trinkets,
trousers, shirts, and shoes, and we take them all. Madam President, do
you know how many people are enforcing trade agreements with China?
Fewer than 10. Fewer than 10 people. The same is true with Japan, with
which we have a huge trade deficit.
It is probably not unnoticed that I have a great deal of angst about
the way these issues generally are handled. We do not have a thoughtful
debate; we have a thoughtless debate. This is chanting about
irrelevancies instead of talking about what makes this country strong.

The economic engine in this country, in my judgment, is an economic
engine that begins with working people and also businesses willing to
invest their money to ask for a fair shake in international
competition. We create these trade agreements with other countries that
result in huge trade deficits, and we have Senators come to the Chamber
and talk about how many new jobs they have created. It is total
nonsense. They ought to be talking about the 3 million jobs they have
lost, and then talk about a few of the names of the people who have
lost their jobs.
I guarantee there is not one Member of the Senate who is going to
lose his job because of a bad trade agreement. There are going to be a
lot of folks out there raising a family and trying very hard to make a
good living who will be told: No, your job does not exist in Akron, OH,
anymore. Your job is now going to Sri Lanka, and we are sorry, that is
life, that is the global economy.
It is inevitable now this President will be given fast-track
authority. I did not believe we ought to give fast-track authority to
President Clinton, and I do not believe we ought to give it to this
President.
What I say about fast track is this: Take 1, 2, 10, or 20 of the
trade problems we already have from existing trade agreements. Try to
fix those. Then come back and let's talk about new agreements.
I will not vote for this fast track bill. I suspect many Members of
the Senate will. They will button their coats tighter, stand up proudly
and say how wonderful it is for this country, and not one of them will
have his job moved to Sri Lanka, Mexico, or anywhere else. I guarantee
working people who lose their jobs because of this will find precious
little comfort by having trade adjustment assistance as part of it.
Yes, I support that part of the trade package. But it is not a good
substitute for good trade law, and everybody in this Chamber knows it.
Madam President, I would like to take a couple more hours, but I need
to step aside. We have other business to do. I hope at some point we
will have a real debate on trade in the Senate. It is certainly not the
leader's fault we have not had a real debate. The problem is the lack
of substance of the underlying bill. We cannot have a debate about
substance.
I invite other Senators to spend a few hours talking about the
reality of international trade. If anybody wants to do that with me, I
will join him and talk about real numbers and the truth on trade.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. NICKLES. I have a brief question. I know my friend from Nevada
wants to make a UC request. Getting

[[Page S4760]]

the tenor of the Senator's debate--interesting debate--he is critical
of the NAFTA agreement, one of the three free trade agreements passed
by the Senate, two of which passed almost unanimously--the Jordanian
trade agreement and the free trade agreement with Israel. NAFTA was not
quite as unanimous. But did the Senator vote in favor of those three
free trade agreements?
Mr. DORGAN. No, I did not vote in favor of NAFTA, I did not vote in
favor of the U.S.-Canada agreement, and I did not vote in favor of
GATT.
Mr. NICKLES. Did the Senator vote in favor of the Israel or Jordan
free trade agreements?
Mr. DORGAN. I did. And it is ironic that the Senator who makes the
point about the Jordan agreement voted to keep the Jordan agreement
labor standards out of this fast-track legislation.
I voted for the bilateral trade agreements that the Senator From
Oklahoma mentioned, but I did not vote for NAFTA, I did not vote for
United States-Canada Agreement, and I did not vote for GATT. Those
agreements have led to huge deficits. These numbers do not represent
success, not in North Dakota and not in Oklahoma. These growing massive
deficits are choking our country. I would love it if the Senator from
Oklahoma will join me sometime in a debate on trade on the floor of the
Senate.
It is hard to get people to agree to do that, but if the Senator from
Oklahoma would, I would love to have the opportunity.
Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend.
Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, is going to speak.
First, I ask unanimous consent that following the previously ordered
sequence of speakers, Senator Sarbanes be recognized to speak for up to
15 minutes, and Senator Kennedy be recognized for up to 30 minutes,
with the previous provision regarding Republican speakers remaining in
effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. NICKLES. Did the Senator say Senator Sarbanes and then Senator
Kennedy?
Mr. REID. Yes, but a Republican can come in between if they care to.
Mr. NICKLES. I believe Senator Kennedy may be speaking on a different
nontrade issue.
Mr. REID. If there is an objection, the rights of the Republicans are
preserved.
Mr. NICKLES. I would like to reserve some time for a Republican to be
able to follow Senator Kennedy.
Mr. REID. The Senator has that right.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator modify his request?
Mr. REID. Yes, I will do that in the next one.
Mr. NICKLES. Well, if Senator Kennedy is going to be speaking on
minimum wage, I would like for a Republican, likewise, to have an
opportunity to speak on that.
Mr. REID. If that is the desire of the Senator, we have no problem
with that. Following Senator Kennedy, that would be fine.
Mr. NICKLES. For 15 minutes?
Mr. REID. Fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________