Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, my colleague, Senator Craig from Idaho, spoke in support of the amendment. It is an amendment we offered jointly. I ask unanimous consent that others in the Senate who have asked this morning be added as cosponsors: Senators Byrd, Dayton, and Durbin.

Mr. DORGAN. In response to the Senator from Montana, I certainly respect his view, but I don't share his view that this amendment would in any way be unconstitutional. I believe the amendment, if I modify it, would be less likely to achieve its purpose. If I don't modify it, I think it is a stronger initiative that says to the administration, this is what the Congress aspires to achieve with respect to changing the secrecy by which dispute tribunals in NAFTA are now conducted. I would prefer we not modify it in order that it be a stronger initiative. I do not see this as in any way being unconstitutional. It is in perfect concert with our constitutional responsibilities.

Mr. DORGAN. Let me describe again what it is we are attempting to achieve. We have now, under NAFTA, dispute tribunals or tribunals that are created for the purposes of resolving disputes. Regrettably, those tribunals are conducted in secret. They are secret tribunals. The American people are excluded from knowing what they have done, what they are doing, what they are going to do, how they reached a decision. We are not entitled to review any of the information they have or the information they might have used to reach a decision. They lock the door, and behind locked closed doors, they discuss this country's future with respect to international trade disputes. We ought not be a party to that. That is not what we signed up for. That is not what the U.S. Government is about--secrecy, closed, locked doors in some foreign land. That is not what we ought to be about. This amendment says: Let's stop that. Let's not have the dispute tribunals be secret. Let me give an example of why this is important: what is happening with respect to NAFTA and a fuel additive called MTBE. This is all under something called chapter 11. You might think chapter 11 has to do with bankruptcy. It does not. Chapter 11 was put in NAFTA at the request of negotiators thinking that U.S. investors in Mexico might have their assets seized by the Mexican Government or Mexican regulators and the Mexican legal system probably wouldn't provide sufficient protection. So U.S. negotiators actually asked to have chapter 11 included in NAFTA. It was. It was designed to create tribunals that would consider claims from foreign investors that they had property taken by Government regulation. By design, these tribunals were given leeway to operate in secrecy. They were bound only by international arbitration rules. That allowed the tribunals to act however they saw fit. If any of the parties to the claim wanted to keep the proceedings secret, the briefs would not be disclosed and the hearings would be closed. And that is exactly what has happened. Let me describe what has happened here with respect to chapter 11 and the tribunals and what this Government, what the United States of America, is part of. It involves Methanex, a Canadian company that makes MTBE, a fuel additive. We have been talking about MTBE recently in the debate over the energy bill so most Members are familiar with this fuel additive. In 1999, California decided to ban MTBE because they began to find it in their ground water and drinking water. All of a sudden they began to measure this fuel additive, which is harmful to human health in their water system. They decided they better ban MTBE. And so California did that. Fourteen other States are considering limitations to the use of MTBE. It was 1990, in fact, when California first discovered traces of MTBE in the drinking water. In 1995, 71 percent of Santa Monica's drinking water was shut down. Their supply was shut down due to the presence of MTBE. In 1996, MTBE was discovered in Lake Tahoe. In 1998, an EPA blue-ribbon panel called for substantial reduction in the usage of MTBE. Then California decided, in 1999, they were going to ban MTBE altogether. A Canadian corporation that makes it called Methanex heard about the California decision, and they realized they stood to lose a lot of money. If California bans MTBE, this corporation stands to lose money. So Methanex filed a chapter 11 claim against the United States for $970 million. Think of this. Methanex, a Canadian corporation, files a $970 million claim against the United States of America because California decided to ban MTBE because it was discovering it was showing up in drinking water and ground water and that it is harmful to human health. So a foreign corporation sues our country because we are taking action to protect human health in this country. This claim has had an incredibly chilling effect on environmental regulatory activity. If a State wants to keep poisons out of its rivers and streams, it now has to worry about a chapter 11 complaint being filed. The producers of that poison will file a chapter 11 claim and claim a billion dollars in injury against the United States. But, then, that claim, when considered under a tribunal in chapter 11, will be resolved in secret. Let me restate this so people will understand it. A State finds a poison in its drinking water and in its ground water. It takes action to ban the use of that fuel additive that creates it and which has allowed it to show up in the drinking water; and a foreign company that produces it sues us for almost $1 billion because that is the injury that will exist to that company. By the way, they would sue us and go to chapter 11, and they will have an advantage in a three-person tribunal under chapter 11 of having secret proceedings. The American people are told it is none of your business. It is none of our business when we take action to stop poisons from finding their way to our drinking water? That is none of our business? Well, I am using one example--MTBE. This amendment says it shall not be secret any longer, that the dispute resolution under chapter 11--the tribunals, their behavior, actions and their considerations--shall not be secret. You cannot keep that information from the American people. We will not allow it. Our amendment says the President shall negotiate a change with Canada and Mexico to the conditions under which these tribunals meet and shall report back to Congress within 1 year; that these tribunals shall be held in the open; that the secrecy has ended, and that transparency will exist. That is our amendment. My colleague from Montana said the amendment is unconstitutional. If I might, without providing a lecture on the Constitution, I will put up a chart. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says the Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. It doesn't say Ambassador Zoellick shall have the power, or President Clinton or President Bush shall have the power; it says the Congress shall have the power. We have a lot of people here who have forgotten that or have decided to ignore it. But that is what the Constitution of the United States says--Congress shall have the power. Fifty-five people wrote that over 200 years ago. This Congress, well over two centuries later, has apparently decided that it wishes to consider giving the President the authority on trade with something called fast track. So it is apparently not unconstitutional in the minds of some to give the President this authority, despite the fact that the Constitution says it is the Congress's authority. They would say it is not unconstitutional to give the President the authority to do this, but it is unconstitutional to direct the President to end secrecy in the tribunals. I don't understand that. That doesn't make any sense to me. Of course, we have a right to direct our trade negotiators to direct this administration to negotiate an end to the secrecy in these tribunals. Of course, we have a right to do that. Are we kidding? The Constitution says we have the right. This isn't some idle piece of paper. It is the Constitution of the United States. I don't want to hear that we don't have the authority to do this. Of course we do. The question for the Senate is this: In the future, both in this case and the next one, when one of our States, or our Government, takes action to protect our citizens against someone poisoning our water or polluting our air, and somebody files a large claim against the United States for protecting its citizens, saying, by the way, you have violated our trade laws and injured us; do you want the consideration of that dispute to be resolved in deep secrecy, behind closed doors, perhaps in a foreign land, with three people who will not tell you what they are doing, what they have done, or why they have done it? Is that what you want for this country? I don't think so. If you believe in open government, and in democracy, and in fair trade, and in the Constitution, then you have to believe in this amendment. This is not rocket science. This is common sense. Often, common sense finds a difficult road here in the Congress because it attracts comments by people who say, well, I know it sounds good, but it is not as easy as it sounds. This is as easy as it sounds, believe me. It is as easy as it sounds. All this country has to do, with respect to Canada and Mexico, is to say with respect to our trade agreement that we will not be involved in secret tribunals. That is not the American way and not something Congress will any longer support. Why do we have to do this in this legislation? Because we have had our Trade Representative, Mr. Zoellick, already tell us that he would like to end the secrecy. Trade ministers from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico last year tried to impose greater openness on a procedure under NAFTA that allows companies to sue governments for millions in monetary damages, but the effort has so far failed. That is according to the Washington Times last month. Charges of secrecy have dogged the chapter 11 process since its inception. Many NAFTA supporters now concede that the closed tribunals have contributed to public distrust of the agreement, and advocate greater openness for the procedure. Our Trade Representative, Mr. Zoellick, has spoken on this issue. He wants more openness. But the fact is, these tribunals ignore it. The openness doesn't now exist. There is still a veil of secrecy. That dis- serves the interests of this country. That is why this amendment is necessary, and that is why the amendment is necessary now. No, it is not unconstitutional--not at all. This Congress has every right to speak on this subject. In fact, this Congress has a responsibility to speak on this subject. We know it is wrong to have a foreign corporation suing our Government because our Government is taking action to protect our consumers against poison in the water. And then to throw that into a tribunal and tell the American people, by the way, it is none of their business; they can't see it, hear it, or be a part of it, we know that is wrong. Everybody in this Chamber knows that is wrong. So we are going to vote on this amendment. As I said when I started, it is a bipartisan amendment. I have been joined by Senator Craig from Idaho, from the other party. I appreciate his cosponsorship and his work with me on it. I think he believes, as I do--in fact, he expressed that a few minutes ago on this floor--that we must take action to end this secrecy. This is the place to do it and this is the time to do it. We are now considering international trade. We are considering fast- track trade authority. This is the place and time to add this amendment. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I chaired a hearing recently at which Senator Schumer testified and Senator McCain, as the ranking member, attended. Generic drugs are a very important issue. I push for price restraint because I think it is very important with respect to what is happening to price increases of prescription drugs. However, I bear no ill will toward this industry. I think the drug industry is a remarkable industry. It does some remarkable things. We should compliment them for some of the programs they have initiated in recent weeks, for the low income senior citizens. That is a good step. They do some awfully good work. Tamoxifen costs one-tenth the price in Canada; you pay 10 times more if you are an American, that drug resulted from public funding and public research at the National Institutes of Health. So I worry very much that what is happening is that the public is paying for research in some areas and, when the drugs are privatizing, a price is affixed to them that is way out of bounds. I bear no ill will towards this industry. I want them to do well and to continue to search for lifesaving drugs. But I think it is important to point out that, when we talk about miracle drugs, Americans who need them will get their lifesaving benefits only if they can have access to them, and can afford them. There are so many Americans who cannot chase double-digit price increases every year. That is why we deal with this issue. The issue I have been concerned about is reimportation from Canada. Not because I want anybody to have to go to Canada to buy prescription drugs, that is not my goal. My goal, of course, is the repricing of those drugs in this country because, if distributors and pharmacies can go to Canada and access the same drugs, it will force a repricing of those drugs here. I want to have a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare Program but I don't want to break the bank. If we do that and do nothing about price restraint and downward pressure on prices we will break the bank of this Government. We must address both issues, coverage and price.

Mr. DORGAN. May I be recognized?

Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the conversation about the prescription drug issue. It is important. There are two pieces to it. One is coverage for those who do not have access or the resources to get the prescription drugs they need. These are lifesaving medicines that can only save lives if you have access and can afford them. The second issue is price. That is an important issue. If we talk only of coverage, and not price, we break the bank. Connecting the hose between the prescription drug and the Federal tank means we will suck money out of the tank forever. We will break the bank if we do not do something about prices. Last year, the cost of prescription drugs increased 17 percent in this country. Year after, the cost increases have been double digit. There has been both utilization and price inflation, double-digit increases in the cost of prescription drugs for 5 years in a row. It will continue into the future unless we do something. We have to deal with coverage. We also have to be concerned about price: What kinds of approaches can we implement that put downward pressure on prices? I ask unanimous consent to show bottles on the floor of the Senate that have contained prescription drugs.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have introduced a bipartisan piece of legislation supported by Republicans and Democrats that allows pharmacists, licensed distributors, and wholesalers in our country to access prescription drugs in Canada--same drug, in the same bottles, made by the same company, sold in Canada and North Dakota, with radically different prices. This is a drug called Celebrex, which is used for arthritis. It is sold in identical bottles, except one cap is blue and one is white-- same pill, put in the same bottle, made by the same company, sold in Canada and the United States. The Canadian pays 79 cents per tablet, and the American pays $2.20 per tablet--same drug, same company, same pill bottle, but a huge difference in prices. Here are two additional examples. Most everyone knows that Lipitor lowers cholesterol. But we have two different prices for the same pill, put in the same bottle, and made by the same company. It is $1.01 wholesale in Canada and $1.86 per tablet to the United States consumer. One more example is Paxil which is used to treat depression. Paxil is packaged in a bottle that is identical whether you get it in Canada or in the United States. The only difference with Paxil is the difference in price--as in the case of most drugs. It costs 97 cents per tablet for the Canadian, $2.20 per tablet for the American consumer. The U.S. consumer pays the highest prices in the world for the prescription drugs. It is the same pill, made by the same company, put in the same bottle, for which there is a radical difference in cost. I use one other example without a bottle. It is called tamoxifen, which is used to treat breast cancer. For every 10 cents charged to a Canadian, $1 is charged to an American consumer. If you are buying tamoxifen, you can buy it in Canada for one-tenth the price charged in this country. With respect to these prices, there is a little town in North Dakota called Michigan, not so far from the Canadian border. At the end of a meeting one night, a woman, perhaps in her late seventies, came to me and said: Mr. Senator, can you help me? I said: What is the problem? Her eyes began to well with tears, and her chin began to quiver. She said: I have heart disease and diabetes; my doctor prescribes a great deal of medicine I must take, and I don't have the money to purchase the drugs. The doctor says I must have these drugs in order to continue to live a good life. That is the problem. We need prescription drug coverage. We also need restraint on pricing. The two, together, can help the American people access lifesaving drugs. Miracle drugs can only provide miracles if people can afford them. That is why we are fighting to make some sense of this policy. What I have tried to do, on a bipartisan basis, with Republicans and Democrats supporting this reimportation bill that we have now introduced, is to allow pharmacists and distributors to access those same drugs that are sold at much lower prices in our neighboring country of Canada. I yield for a question.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I understand the rather lengthy managers' amendment has just been offered. I do not know how many pages it is, but obviously we will have to study it. It is a substantial amendment. I offer my amendment in the first degree to the managers' amendment that was just offered. I will describe it briefly. I understand there are no further votes today, and perhaps I will discuss it briefly and then discuss it some in the morning. I hope perhaps tomorrow we may have a vote on it. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Craig from Idaho. The amendment is relatively simple. This amendment deals with Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, secret multinational tribunals consider claims by private investors against member countries, including claims by foreign investors against the U.S. Government. This amendment would end the undemocratic and unfair secrecy in these tribunals. My amendment directs the President to negotiate with Canada and Mexico an amendment to NAFTA that would require transparency in these tribunals. The U.S. Trade Representative under this amendment is to certify to Congress that this has been done within 12 months of the enactment. Even the supporters of fast track have recognized that secrecy is not appropriate, and yet we have these tribunals that are secret. No one is allowed to understand their work; no one can be a part of their discussions; no one understands the deliberations. The door is locked. Three members are appointed to a tribunal. They meet in secret, make judgments in secret, make decisions in secret, and then we are told the result. That is not the way for this country to proceed with respect to dispute resolutions to trade agreements. U.S. Trade Representative Zoellick has recognized this secrecy is a problem, and he met with his counterparts from Mexico and Canada on this issue. In fact, they agreed there needed to be more openness, and they announced that July 31 of last year. They said that these tribunals will operate as openly as possible. But just last month, a NAFTA tribunal refused to open their proceedings once again and rejected the guidelines by Ambassador Zoellick and his counterparts. This amendment will fix a problem that everyone, including the administration, acknowledges. It will require transparency. It will require an end to the secrecy, an opening up of the process so the American people can understand how this democratic process must work. We cannot and should not be a party to secret tribunals. We have been, but we should not be, and my amendment will remedy that. I understand that in the negotiating objectives described in the managers' amendment, there is language that would address the secrecy of the tribunals going forward for future agreements. I do not know that for certain. I am told that is part of the managers' amendment. If it is the case, it seems logical to me that we would want to extend that to other agreements with which we are now engaged, including the North American Free Trade Agreement. I might mention again--I do not have all the details--but we have a situation in California where California understood that an additive to gasoline called MTBE was showing up in drinking water and ground water. They discovered that is dangerous to people, and California banned MTBE from being added to gasoline in California. A couple of other States have taken the same action. A Canadian company that manufactures MTBE has filed an action under NAFTA and is asking for hundreds of millions of dollars against California and our country because we are taking action to protect our citizens. They say they have been injured by this and have a right under NAFTA to make the claim; then, a tribunal is developed and begins to meet and it is totally secret. Its proceedings are totally, completely secret. The American public is told: You are not involved; you cannot see, you cannot be a part of this; it is none of your business. Talk about a bizarre set of circumstances for a democracy to enter into trade agreements by which we allow someone from another country to challenge a State government in our country, just because it is trying to protect their citizens from poisons in the drinking water, chemicals that are harmful to human health. We end up being sued under a trade agreement for damages totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, just for protecting our people; and we are told that this suit will be determined by a tribunal that will meet in secret. What is that about? Does anybody really think this makes any sense? Can anybody really support this? We will have a vote on this and see whether people will. This amendment, which is bipartisan--Senator Craig and I are offering it--is a simple one. It says we are a party to trade agreements--we understand that--but we cannot and should not be a party to a trade agreement by which investor dispute tribunals will be conducted in secret. They have been in the past, they should not ever be again, and our amendment says, stop it, this country cannot be a part of that. I will speak at greater length about the amendment and describe in some more detail the MTBE saga, which I think is symbolic of the egregious actions of tribunals meeting in secrecy. I will not do that this evening. I will do that in the morning.

Mr. DORGAN. That is the case. This is an amendment I am offering, along with my colleague Senator Craig from Idaho. It is bipartisan. And whether you are in favor of fast track or opposed to it, you should be opposed to tribunals meeting in secret. I think we will find agreement between both supporters and opponents of fast track that we ought not be a party to tribunals that are secret, that are shielded from the view of the American people. I am going to use the MTBE case tomorrow morning to graphically demonstrate how absurd it is that we could be sued under a trade law for taking action, or we can have action taken against us for our deciding we want to protect the health of the American people and that the dispute will be resolved behind a cloak of secrecy. That is not what this country should be involved in. It is at this point because that is the way NAFTA works, but we can change it. This Congress can change it, and I hope tomorrow by voting for this amendment this Congress will change it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask the Senator from South Carolina, isn't it the case that the chart that the Senator shows on durum wheat starts showing a collapse--actually, if the chart started back a bit, it would start showing a collapse almost immediately following the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. That was a Free Trade Agreement where Clayton Yeutter, who was then our trade ambassador--he had a great disposition. He smiled all the time. And you always felt like the Sun was shining and everything was right, nothing was wrong. So Clayton Yeutter went up to negotiate with Canada on our behalf, and he came back with the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. We didn't learn it until later, but he had just traded away the interests of American farmers because what happened to us was an avalanche of unfairly subsidized grain that came into our country from the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a state monopoly. It would be illegal in this country. But in Canada they shoved all this grain into our country. And then when we went up to try to find out what the prices were so that we could take action against Canada, the Canadian Wheat Board said: Go fly a kite. We don't intend to show you any information. We have done that for years. The result is that our farmers have been devastated by this unfair trade. This all comes from Clayton Yeutter's negotiations with the Canadians; is that not the case?

Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for an additional question.

Mr. DORGAN. Let me ask if the Senator will yield for a question. The Senator comes to the floor often and talks about Ricardo and the doctorate of comparative advantage. I used to teach a little economics in college. There is no doctrine of comparative advantage in most of these unfair trade circumstances. Most of what has happened with respect to advantage is political; that is, the political system of the country decides we are going to have a state monopoly which trades in your country.

Mr. DORGAN. There are so many issues we could talk about--beef to Japan, automobiles from Korea. Let me talk about this issue of wheat from Canada for a moment. It is a fascinating issue. There was a woman from North Dakota who married a Canadian and moved up to Canada. She came back for Thanksgiving or Christmas to North Dakota. And when she was back on the farm, her father said: Take up a couple bags of wheat. She was going to mill that back up in Canada and make bread because we have great spring wheat for making great hard bread. She took back a grocery sack full of wheat. All the way back to the Canadian border she met 18-wheel trucks full of Canadian wheat coming south--hundreds and hundreds of trucks, millions of bushels, every day, every hour. But when she got to the border with two grocery bags full of grain she was going to grind in order to make bread, they told her: You can't take two grocery sacks full of American wheat into Canada. She had to pour it on the ground at the border, despite the fact that all the way up she met Canadian 18-wheel trucks hauling Canadian wheat south. She couldn't get two grocery bags full through the border near Canada. How did we end up with that? A circumstance where they are hauling all that grain, coming south from Canada in an unfair way, but you can't get two grocery bags full into Canada because of a trade agreement negotiated by people who were basically incompetent and traded away the interests of American farmers. Yet here we are being told: Let's not fix the trade agreements we have problems with. Let's give the President the authority to do new trade agreements. My message is very simple: Fix a few of the problems, just a few, start fixing a few. Demonstrate that there is some backbone in this country to stand up, to have the nerve and the will to fix some trade problems. Then come to us and talk about the next negotiation. But only then and not until then. Fix a few problems first.

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be given 5 additional minutes.

Mr. DORGAN. So decisions are made to allow 12-year-old kids to work in a manufacturing plant for 12 cents an hour. That is unfair. Manufacturing plants to operate without safe working places. Manufacturers will dump chemicals into the streams and the air and send the product to the store shelves in Pittsburgh and Los Angeles and Fargo and Charlotte. That is unfair. These are political decisions in countries around the world about the conditions of production. People listen to the Senator from South Carolina, and some are going to say: It is the same old stuff. He just wants to be a protectionist. In my judgment, there is nothing wrong with protecting American interests and requiring fair trade. If that is what protecting is about, sign me up. I want to protect our country's economic interests. But I believe the Senator from South Carolina feels as I do. I support expanded trade. I believe expanded trade is healthy. I believe we can compete anywhere in the world. But I demand fair trade. When trade is not fair, this country has a responsibility to stand up for its producers. It has failed to do that time and time again. Is that not the case?

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for one additional question?

Mr. DORGAN. Senator Hollings raised the issue of bananas. I wanted to explore that for a moment. Is it not the case that our country had a big fight with Europe about bananas?

Mr. DORGAN. No. We were fighting with Europe because they would not allow bananas into the European economies. I mentioned today that we had a dispute with Europe about beef. We went to the WTO and won a case against Europe. You know how we penalized Europe? We said: We are taking action against your truffles and your goose liver and Roquefort cheese.

Mr. DORGAN. We were fighting with Europe about bananas and we don't produce them. Those bananas were coming from the Caribbean, and Europe would not let them in.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 20 minutes.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are about to have the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member of the Finance Committee offer a managers' package to the Andean trade bill that will be the pending business when we complete morning business. No doubt some who watch the proceedings will be confused by what is happening because we have an Andean trade bill that will apparently be amended by something called trade adjustment assistance and, more importantly, will be amended by something called trade promotion authority. Trade Promotion Authority is a euphemism for fast-track trade authority. One would expect fast-track trade authority would be brought to the floor by itself. It is a very big policy issue. Yet it is coming in the form of a managers' package. One amendment is a part of the managers' package. I regret that, but that is how we have to deal with it. I will speak about trade generally and explain why I do not support trade promotion authority or so-called fast track. I did not support giving fast-track trade authority to President Clinton, and he didn't get it. And I don't support giving fast-track trade authority to this President, and he should not have it. Let me describe for a moment why I feel that way. This is what the Constitution says about international trade. Article I, section 8, says: The Congress shall have the power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations. Not the President, not the trade ambassador, not some trade negotiator, but the U.S. Congress. Fast track does away with that. Under fast track, Congress handcuffs its hands behind its back and says to a President, go negotiate a trade agreement somewhere and bring it back to the Congress, and we guarantee none of us will be able to offer an amendment, no matter how flawed the deal might be. Fast track means expedited procedures by which a trade treaty comes through the Congress guaranteeing no one has the ability to offer an amendment. It is undemocratic. It does not make sense. Why would Congress, being told by the U.S. Constitution what their objection and their responsibilities are, decide to cede those responsibilities to the President? It does not make sense to me. There is an old saying, there is no education in the second kick of a mule. Having been through this a couple of times and been burned badly, Congress ought to understand when a bad trade agreement is negotiated and brought back. It is very hard for the Congress to turn down a negotiated trade agreement. What happens is the Congress embraces the agreement in total and rants about the specific provisions in the agreement that injure specific industries in the country because they are unfair, but no one can do anything about it. We had a speech by Trade Representative Zoellick about 5 or 6 months ago. He was giving a speech in Chicago. Speaking to a business group in Chicago, Zoellick described lawmakers and lobbyists who oppose trade promotion authority, fast track, a bill sponsored by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, and said they are ``xenophobes and isolationists.'' That is a thoughtless way to debate this issue-- ``xenophobes and isolationists.'' A colleague of mine yesterday, in discussing this, said something with which I strongly agree. This country ought not ever hang its head with respect to the issue of trade. This country can, should, and will be proud of its record in trade. We have led the world in opening markets, in deciding we want to lead the world in expanded trade, in freer trade and in fair trade. That has always been what this country has done. No one ought to point to this country with respect to trade issues. We have open markets, we have free trade, we have always been willing to compete almost anywhere, any time, under any set of circumstances. We have nothing at all to be ashamed of. We have a great deal to be proud of with respect to international trade. We are now moving into a different area. Globalization is here. We are not going to turn back the clock. Globalization is part of our lives. The question isn't whether to embrace it; the question is: What are the rules for globalization? What are the rules for the new global economy? Are there rules of fair play for admission to the American marketplace? We have had men and women die on the streets in this country who were walking the streets and demonstrating for the right to form labor unions early in the last century, demanding the right of workers to form labor unions. This country now has free labor unions. We had people marching in the street to demand safe workplaces. Now we have rules and laws that require workplaces be safe for workers. We had people marching in the streets to demand child labor laws, to take the 10- and 12-year-old kids out of the coal mines and the factories. Now we have laws in this country with respect to child labor. We had people marching in the streets in America trying to prohibit those who were producing chemicals from and dumping them into our water and our air and polluting our environment. Now we have clean air and clean water laws, and we have prohibitions against those who pollute our environment. These fights have been over the conditions of production. So, in a global economy, what is the admission to the American marketplace, where we have already had the debate and made the decisions about those issues, the issues of a fair wage, a safe workplace, the right to organize, the prohibition against polluting? What is the admission to our marketplace? I ask the question, Is it fair trade for someone overseas in some foreign land who hires 12-year- old kids, pays them 12 cents an hour, and puts them in a factory 12 hours a day, to make a product they ship to Pittsburgh, Fargo, or Los Angeles? Is that fair trade for the men and women of the American workforce to compete against? Twenty-cent-an-hour labor by 12-year-old kids? Twelve-cent-an-hour labor by 10-year-old kids? Is it fair to compete against a plant overseas that can dump its chemicals in the water, its pollutants in the air, hire underage children, have unsafe workplaces, and prohibit their workers the right to organize? Is that fair competition for American workers? Will those who want to produce in our world simply pole-vault over all of those difficult issues we have already addressed in our country--a safe workplace, child labor, a fair income, the right to organize, a prohibition against polluting the air and water? Can they just pole-vault over all of that and go to a country where they do not have to abide by any of that. They can hire kids, dump chemicals in the water and the air, fail to pay a living wage, and do nothing to have a safe workplace. They can produce whatever product they want, and ship it to the American marketplace. That is not fair trade. It is not fair to the American worker. It is not fair competition. It is not fair to American businesses trying to compete in those circumstances. Fast-track authority will be voted on here in the next week or so, 2 weeks perhaps. We are told it is sweetened and made less bitter by something called trade adjustment assistance. That means help for people who have lost their jobs. It's ironic, isn't it, that we are told these new trade agreements they want to negotiate will be good for our country, but they are already making plans for all the people that will lose their jobs because of these new trade agreements? I guarantee that there is not one Member of the Senate who will lose his or her job because of a trade negotiation overseas. Our negotiators will rush overseas, if we give this authority. They will close the room and in secret negotiate a trade deal, and I guarantee there not one Member of the Senate will have his job directly threatened by that trade agreement. It is just the folks who work in the factories, the plants, on the factory floors who are producing products that cannot compete with unfair competition. I am not someone who believes we ought to put up a wall or we ought to promote less trade. I believe we ought to have essentially free markets and expanded trade. But I demand fair trade. I just demand fair trade. If we do not have fair trade, then this country ought to have the backbone, the muscle, and the strength to say to other countries: You must open your markets to this country's products and the products you send to this country must be produced under conditions that are fair. Whenever the subject of trade comes up, a lot of people are quick to classify the different views into two camps: the larger, expansive view of people who are smart and get it and see over the horizon and understand the global economy; that is, the people who support fast track; and the others are xenophobes, who are stooges, who don't understand any of this, have blinders on and cannot see over the horizon. They oppose fast track. Those who write the editorials, those who are lobbying on behalf of fast track, those who make comments like Mr. Zoellick, they create these thoughtless divisions of those who get it and those who don't; those who are smart and those who are not. Of course that is not the issue at all. Let me describe what the issue is. I talked about the issues we fought about in this country for years. There are 2.9 million children in Brazil under the age of 15 who are working, working in manufacturing plants and other circumstances that will produce products that will come to our marketplace. Is it fair trade to ask someone from Pittsburgh, trying to raise a family, being paid a decent wage, working in a factory that requires a safe workplace--is it fair trade to ask that person to compete against a 12- year-old? The legal minimum age for workers in Peru is 12. That is the legal working age. So which of our workers and in which of our States do we want to have to compete against 12-year-olds? Is it fair to have the product of 12- year-olds sit on America's store shelves so the consumers can get a good deal, buying cheap products, because 12-year-olds in some foreign land produced it? And shouldn't foreign markets be open to our products, which are produced under decent working conditions. Every time I come to the floor, I cite the example of the Korean auto market. I know the Korean automobile industry chokes on it because I have gotten several letters from them now. I use this as an example of fair trade because there is just such a lopsided trade imbalance with Korea when it comes to cars. Last year Korea shipped 620,000 Korean cars to the United States. Do you know how many American cars we were able to sell in Korea? We sold 2,800. Let me say that again. Korea shipped us 620,000 Korean automobiles and we were able to sell 2,800 U.S. automobiles in Korea. Do you know why? Because the Koreans don't want to buy U.S. automobiles--I am talking about the Korean Government. They don't want Koreans to purchase U.S. automobiles, and they put a series of obstacles up against us selling cars in Korea. Fair? Of course it is not fair. Is there somebody going to do something about that? No. Our trade negotiators are not interested in solving problems--only in negotiating new agreements. 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 thinking of our trade negotiators because they lose almost immediately when they begin negotiating. If I had some feeling somebody, somewhere, someplace was going to solve a problem or two here or there, then I would maybe have a little confidence. But I could stand here and recite problem after problem. There is the unfair trade involving wheat from Canada, that comes here from a monopoly called the Canadian Wheat Board that would be illegal in this country, taking money out of the pockets of our family farmers, and nothing is being done about it. How about Brazilian sugar that undermines our sugar program? The sugar is shipped to Canada, where it is packed into molasses. The molasses are shipped to the United States, where the sugar is taken out, and the molasses are shipped back to Canada. This is just a blatantly unfair trade practice, yet nobody is doing anything about it. Or let's talk about barriers to U.S. exports of high-fructose corn syrup to Mexico. The Mexicans said they would let it into their country. But they will not. Every pound of beef going from this country to Japan has a 38.5- percent tariff, every single pound of American beef. We ought to get more T-bones into Japan. Our negotiators thought it was a triumph to get Japanese tariffs on U.S. beef reduced to 38.5-percent. Is that a success? I don't think so. I hardly dare begin to speak of China. The problems of getting access to the Chinese marketplace are legion. Wheat flour--try to sell wheat flour to the European Union. There is a 78-percent tariff on wheat flour to the European Union, so our farmers can't get wheat flour into the European Union. In fact, we can't get U.S. beef into the European Union because it is produced with hormones. The European press has the Europeans thinking we produce cows with two heads. Do you know what happened? What happened was interesting. It is typical of, in my judgment, our weak-kneed trade approach. Because Europe has caused us a problem on beef, we took the EU to the World Trade Organization. For once, the World Trade Organization actually ruled in our favor. They ruled that we could take action against Europe. Do you know what action we took against Europe? We slap them with penalties on truffles, goose liver, and Roquefort cheese. That will sure scare the Devil out of the European Union. America is going to take action against their truffles or goose liver. The fact is, our country is unwilling to stand up and exhibit the backbone necessary to say to other countries: This marketplace is the only one like it in the world. There is no substitute for it. We want it open to you. But understand this: The American marketplace is open to your products but your marketplace must be open to ours. No, it is not open to your products if you are going to ship us prison labor production and, yes, we have had some of those goods coming from Chinese prisons to be put on the store shelves of this country. That is unfair. Our marketplace isn't open to you if you are going to lock kids, 10- and 12-year-old kids in plants producing carpets. That is not fair trade. Our markets will be open to you, but you must open your markets to us. Having said all of this, those who might listen will say: All right. So this is someone who doesn't like trade. Nonsense. I think trade is very important. I think expanded trade is very important. It is just that our country has to think differently. For the first 25 years after the Second World War, our trade was all foreign policy. It didn't have anything to do with economic policy. We could tie one hand behind our back and beat anybody in the world. We were the best, the strongest, and the fact is, we could out-trade anybody under any set of circumstances. So for 25 years our trade policy was foreign policy. But the second 25 years after the Second World War things are different. Our competitors are shrewd and tough competitors--Japan, Europe, Canada, China, and others. The fact is they have grown to be shrewd, tough international competitors, and our trade policy can't be foreign policy anymore. It must be tough, hard-nosed economic policy that requires of them what we demand of ourselves. Regrettably, as a country have not been willing to do that. We are always interested in negotiating the next agreement, notwithstanding the problems that we have created in the past agreements. We just can't continue to do that. My understanding is that we are going to have a managers' amendment offered. When the ranking member and the chairman show up, I will be happy to give up the floor. But I am going to offer an amendment, hopefully this afternoon--the first amendment on Trade Promotion Authority. I have a number of amendments, as do many of my colleagues on this issue. The first amendment I am going to offer is very simple. It deals with the issue of the North American Free Trade Agreement that we negotiated previously. It was a terrible agreement. When we started negotiating with Mexico and Canada, we had a small trade surplus with Mexico. We have managed to turn that into a huge deficit. We had a moderate trade deficit with Canada, and managed to increase that many times over. That is the record of NAFTA. I am going to offer an amendment that says that investor dispute tribunals must be opened to the public. We now have a circumstance where when you have an investor dispute with NAFTA, a tribunal is created. It is a three-person tribunal. It is done in secret. It is behind closed doors. It is done in secret. The records are secret. The testimony is in secret. The only thing known are the results. We ought not ever allow that to happen. My amendment is going to say no more secrecy. My amendment is going to say if we are going to be a part of NAFTA, the tribunals must be open. A little fresh air and sunshine will disinfect that process. I hope this amendment will be accepted by the Senate. Let me speak briefly about one of the most egregious cases being considered by one of these tribunals. A few years ago, California decided to eliminate MTBE from our gasoline, and other states have done the same. We have discovered that this gasoline additive shows up in drinking water. It is going to injure the public health. So California says: We have to get rid of MTBE. We will ban it from gasoline as an additive. Because this country, for its own reasons, decides to stand up for the health of its citizens, we are now being sued under the NAFTA agreement by the Canadian company that makes MTBE. We are getting sued for close to a billion dollars. A tribunal is hearing that case, and is doing so in secret. Here we are. That is the result of trade agreements that don't pay nearly enough attention to fairness for this country and fairness to international trade. My expectation is that we will be debating this for perhaps a week or 2 weeks, with many amendments. I heard a rumor--I don't know whether it is true or not--that the chairman and ranking member have reached some kind of agreement perhaps to oppose amendments to fast track. I hope that is not the case. My hope is--because most of us are not on the Finance Committee--that we will be able to come to the Chamber and offer ideas perhaps they have not thought of. I don't expect that committee has a monopoly on good ideas. My expectation is that perhaps there are 80 or 85 other Members of the Senate who might have some ideas that could be considered meritorious and that could be added to fast-track trade authority. I don't support fast-track trade authority. But perhaps in the process of amending this we can change it sufficiently so that it won't adversely impact this country. I hope we will be able to see some support for meritorious amendments that will be offered on the floor of the Senate. There is a lot to discuss with respect to trade. I will not try to touch on every point right now. I think we are waiting for the chairman and ranking member to come and offer their amendments. But I would like to talk for a moment about another issue on trade. This is something that I raised with Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday in an appropriations hearing. It also has to do with trade. I fought for over 3 years on the floor of the Senate and was finally successful last year to make it legal again to sell food to Cuba. For 40 years we have had an embargo; we couldn't sell a thing to Cuba. We could not even sell food or medicine. My contention is that is basically immoral for us to use food as a weapon. We sell food to Communist China. We sell food to Communist Vietnam. But for 40 years we couldn't sell food to Cuba. So I kicked and scratched for a long while with some of my colleagues. I was able to get that aspect of the embargo changed. Just last year, we were able to get it changed so we can actually sell food to Cuba. Cuba had a hurricane recently that caused a great deal of damage, and they need food. They are offering to buy it, and to pay cash. Cuba has now purchased $70 million worth of food from the United States in recent months. A fellow named Pedro Alvarez heads a group called Alimport, which is the Cuban agency that buys food. He was going to come to this country and inspect some facilities, visit a number of agricultural states, including coming to my State of North Dakota. They were prepared to buy wheat and dried beans, I understand. The State Department issued him a visa. He applied for and was given a visa by our interest section for Cuba to come to the United States. Yet abruptly, the visa was revoked. I am trying to find out why the visa was revoked. My staff called the State Department. The State Department said: Well, it is our policy not to encourage food sales to Cuba. Yesterday, I asked the Secretary of State: Is that your policy? The Secretary of State said: It is news to me. I have no such policy. Someone deep in the bowels of the State Department apparently defined for himself the State Department's policy, and did not bother to check with Secretary Powell. I asked for an investigation. Why do you revoke the visa issued to someone who wants to come to our country to buy wheat, dried beans, corn and eggs? Who decided that somehow that threatens our country? Where does that kind of thinking come from? I expect I will probably hear from Secretary Powell in the next day or two. I hope so. I wrote a rather lengthy letter last week. I had the opportunity to question him before an Appropriations Committee hearing yesterday. At a time when agricultural prices have collapsed and our family farmers are hanging on by their fingertips trying to make a go of it, we have some folks somewhere behind the drapes inside the State Department deciding they really don't want to sell food to Cuba and they don't want someone coming up here from Cuba to buy dried beans. If there is some perceived threat about that, I wish someone would inform me and the Senate. That is one more example of the strange approach that people take to international trade. We ought never, under any circumstance, use food as a weapon. It is immoral. Does anyone think Fidel Castro has ever missed a meal because this country had an embargo for 40 years on the shipment of food to Cuba? Does anyone think he has ever missed breakfast, lunch, or dinner? No. Those sorts of things hurt poor people, sick people, and hungry people. They don't hurt Fidel Castro. I have personally written to Mr. Alvarez saying: I am inviting you to this country. I have written to the Secretary of State saying: I want you to provide visas to the people who want to come up and buy food from our family farmers. That is just one more piece in a long, sorry saga of international trade that doesn't represent our country's interests. I am very interested in having robust, strong expanded, trade. I am very interested in finding ways by which we can force open foreign markets. But the record is abysmal. We agreed to NAFTA, GATT, and we do United States-Canada agreements. The fact is that very little has changed in the behavior of China, Europe, Japan, and other countries. Our country leads the way in unilateral behavior in international trade that says our market is open. Our country ought to use its leverage to say we are going to hold up a mirror. If your market isn't open to us, you go sell your trinkets, trousers, and cars somewhere else. And, as soon as you understand that other marketplaces don't offer you what our market does, you come back and agree to open up your marketplace to American businesses and American workers. Then we will have reciprocal trade that is fair to both sides, that is multilateral, and that is beneficial to us, and the countries with whom we do trade agreements. I believe we are about ready to have the chairman and ranking member come. I am very happy to offer an amendment as soon as they are interested in coming. I think they have lengthy opening statements. I will also have an opening statement at some point to amplify these remarks. But I am anxious to offer an amendment this afternoon. I am anxious to have a vote on an amendment, for that matter. If they come and offer their managers' package, give their opening statements, and then let me be recognized to offer an amendment, we could debate the amendment for an hour and then we could have a vote today. I would be happy to do that.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator from South Carolina would yield for a question.