Mark Dayton

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I applaud the Senator from Massachusetts whose leadership and commitment to these children for decades have been resolute. When I came to the Senate a year ago, I thought what a phenomenal opportunity I would have to work with the Senator and others of our colleagues, given the resources we seemed to have available at that time. As I recall, we had trillions of dollars of surpluses. That was the context in which I recall the Leave No Child Behind partnership was forged. I wonder how the Senator feels about having made that commitment, and seeing that promise made for funding for all these areas, and now seeing a budget that comes out like this. What happened to all that money we were going to spend on children?

Mr. DAYTON. The Senator's use of the word ``priorities'' is exactly the right choice. I recall this year we approved another $43 billion in tax breaks for the largest corporations in this country. Combined with what was done last year, would the Senator agree that the priorities of this administration are just fundamentally at odds with the interests of children in America?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. The Senator raises an excellent point. There are negotiations that occur that are in the best interest of the United States. Of course, we want to encourage those negotiations to proceed. Is the Senator aware there is nothing in the Dayton-Craig amendment that would require the Senate to step in on these matters? It simply permits the Senate, by a majority of the Members, to do so if, in the view of the majority of the Members, what has been negotiated is not in the best interest of the United States.

Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DAYTON. The Senator raised an excellent point which I had not thought of until the Senator made the point: 62 Senators signed that letter. Sixty-one Senators voted today in support of the Craig-Dayton amendment. And the one Senator who was necessarily absent was a cosponsor of that amendment. So does the Senator believe, then, this sends a message when 62 Senators sign a letter that they mean what they say?

Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a brief question?

Mr. DAYTON. I agree with the Senator that certainly under the terms the Senator describes, my understanding of the way this would work, if there were an agreement and the United States, by an act of this body, changed the terms of that agreement, the agreement would not be valid; the agreement would not apply. I certainly agree with the Senator there would be no country that would want to sign and agree to something that can be changed unilaterally and still apply. My understanding is the entire agreement would have to go back to the World Trade Organization, or wherever, to be renegotiated.

Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. The Senator will recall--I would like the Record to show I ask the Senator, I received a call from a colleague on a matter this morning and indicated a desire to change, modify this amendment and make it more acceptable to the administration. I would like to ask if that was the Senator's intent, to make this one that would be more acceptable to the administration? Let me say also parenthetically that, as a member of the other political party, I do not intend this amendment in any respect to be something that is referenced to this particular administration. I respect the role the administration has taken, that the trade ambassador has taken with regard to the steel products, as the Senator indicated. I thought it was a very strong position the President took with regard to the lumber coming from Canada; that, as the Senator said, this administration is far more aggressive than its predecessor in that regard, and also with regard to Canadian wheat. My concern in offering this was not with regard to any particular administration. My interest was in protecting this Congress for many administrations to come on this matter. I ask the Senator, is this attempt on our part one that came out of the Senator's negotiations and discussions with the administration?

Mr. DAYTON. I call up amendment No. 3408.

Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, the amendment Senator Craig and I have introduced is one that I think has great importance to this legislation. It is one I am very proud to sponsor with the senior Senator from Idaho, someone with whom I have had the good fortune to work on this and other matters relating to trade as they affect our two States. I also am very pleased that this amendment is cosponsored by 26 of our colleagues, 13 Republicans and 13 Democrats. They reflect a broad spectrum of views on many issues, yet they agree on the need for this amendment. Is it because all of us are against trade, as our detractors have charged? The answer is an emphatic ``no.'' We support this amendment because we recognize that there is more than one side to the U.S. trade equation. There are a great many citizens in our States who have benefited from the liberalization of international trade during the last 20 years. However, there are also a great many Americans who have been harmed by the results of recent trade agreements. The proponents of more free trade acknowledge only the winners. Their reports cite only the businesses, the jobs, and the revenues from increased exports. Those benefits are substantial; however, they form only one side of the trade ledger. On the other side are thousands of bankrupt businesses and farms in the United States, many thousands of lost American jobs, and the massive shifting of U.S. production to other countries. This Dayton-Craig amendment is on behalf of Americans who have been, are being, or will be harmed by continuing trade liberalization. They are hardworking citizens who nevertheless will lose their livelihoods, which in turn will cause lost homes, lost health insurance, lost pensions, lost retirement security, lost hope, and even lost lives. They are not isolated occurrences. They are growing in number across America. They are victims of trade policies and trade practices which are out of balance. In the year 2000, the United States total trade deficit for goods and services was $376 billion. In goods alone, the deficit was $452 billion. In 1990, the total U.S. trade deficit was $81 billion. In 1980, it was only $19 billion. Our country's trade deficit, that imbalance between the value of our exports and the value of our imports, was 4\1/2\ times greater in 2000 than in 1990, and 20 times greater in 2000 than in 1980. A March 18, 2002, Business Week article began: How much longer can the United States rack up giant current account trade deficits? The article cited a Goldman Sachs Global Economic's Research report, which called the current trend ``unsustainable.'' Another recent report stated: America's ballooning trade deficit may be the worst economic problem we face--and no one wants to talk about it. What is driving these soaring trade deficits? It isn't that U.S. exports are not expanding. In many sectors they are growing at a very strong rate, and the last administration worked hard to open foreign markets to U.S. goods and services, as did its predecessors. It's the explosion in imports which is far exceeding export gains. From 1990 to 2000, total U.S. exports in goods and services almost doubled to just over $1 trillion. However, during that decade, total U.S. imports more than doubled--in fact, increased by 133 percent, to almost $1\1/2\ trillion. The increase in imports was $295 billion more than the growth in exports. If you look at key sectors in our economy, you see this pattern. Exports expand. Imports explode. Trade deficits multiply. This serious imbalance has cost the jobs, farms, businesses, and livelihoods of too many Americans. Even in agriculture, the growth in imports has exceeded the growth in exports. Farmers and national commodity organizations, including many coming right out of Minnesota, have been among the biggest supporters of trade liberalization in their hopes that increased exports would lead to higher prices and decent profits in the marketplace. From 1990 to 2000, total U.S. agriculture exports did grow by $10.5 billion, a 26-percent increase. However, agriculture imports increased by over $16 billion during that time. Today, the U.S. balance of trade in all agriculture commodities is still positive; however, that margin is shrinking. Two major causes of our huge trade deficits have been Mexico and Canada. They are the big NAFTA winners. Look at what has happened to U.S. trade with our neighbors since NAFTA took effect on January 1, 1994. In 1993, the last year before NAFTA, all United States exports to Mexico totaled $41.6 billion. Imports from Mexico totaled $39.9 billion, leaving the United States with a $1.7 billion trade surplus with Mexico. During the next 7 years, United States exports into Mexico grew to $111 billion, a 167-percent in crease in 7 years. However, Mexican imports into the United States exploded to $136 billion, a 240-percent increase, and the United States balance of trade with Mexico went from its 1993 surplus to a $25 billion deficit in the year 2000. Our trade with Canada followed a similar pattern. United States exports into Canada increased by $69 billion from 1993 to 2000. However, our imports from Canada grew by $120 billion, almost double the growth in exports. In 2000, our trade deficit with Canada was $52 billion. Looking at one key sector, automobiles, the total automobile imports from Mexico into the United States more than tripled from 1993 to 2000, to almost 1 million per year. Cars imported from Canada into the United States increased by 56 percent during that time to 2.2 million automobiles. Those 3 million autos used to be--or could have been-- manufactured in the United States by American auto workers. Agriculture is another big loser under NAFTA, as too many Minnesota farmers have painfully realized. Canadian wheat, Mexican sugar, milk protein concentrate, stuffed molasses via Canada, and other trade imbalances have caused domestic commodity prices to plummet. The average price of a bushel of corn in the United States in the year 2000, was $1.85, well below the price of $3.11 for a bushel of corn in 1980, 20 years previously. For a bushel of wheat, the price in 2000 was $2.65 per bushel; in 1980 it was $3.91. For soybeans, a bushel in 2000 averaged $4.75; in 1980, that price was $7.57. Milk averaged $12.40 per cwt. in 2000, compared to $13.05 per cwt. in 1980. Turkeys brought 40.7 cents per pound in 2000; 41.3 cents per pound in 1980. All of those prices are in current dollars. After adjusting for inflation, their drops are even more severe. Last year, the U.S. farm price index, the value of all U.S. agriculture products divided by the cost of producing them, dropped to its lowest level since the Great Depression. That index has fallen by 20 percent during the last 10 years. So much for the benefits of NAFTA and international trade liberalization on American agriculture. Similarly, in the nonfarm private sector, the average hourly wage paid U.S. workers in real dollars was less in the year 2000 than in 1990. It was less in 2000 than it was in 1980, and less than it was in 1970. Only by more spouses working more hours have average American families stayed even or moved slightly ahead in the U.S. economy during the last 10, 20, and 30 years. Thus, U.S. trade policies and practices, in balance, are doing many Americans more harm than good. And the harm is increasing more than the good. The response of free trade proponents to this predicament is more free trade. More opening our doors to the largest marketplace in the world, the U.S. economy, which still produces 23 percent of the world's GWP, accounts for 12 percent of world exports, and 18 percent of world imports. Who, then, does benefit from this U.S. trade policy? Primarily, it has been, and continues to be, the enormous cost advantages afforded U.S. corporations who shift production out of the United States into low-wage low-cost countries. Deregulation of the world's product and financial markets has enriched a world class of investors, entrepreneurs, and professionals. At the very top, the accumulation of wealth has been extraordinary. In 1996, the United Nations reported that the assets of the world's 350 billionaires--that is, 350 individuals in this world who are billionaires--exceeded the combined incomes of 45 percent of the world's population, almost 3 billion people. Let me say that again. The assets of the wealthiest 350 people in the world exceeded the total assets of over 3 billion of our world's citizens. But the larger promise made by the proponents of this unregulated world marketplace--particularly to the people of the United States--was that living standards for the rest of Americans would also rise. That promise has not been realized. As trade and financial markets have been flung open, incomes have risen not faster, but more slowly. Income equality among nations has not improved, and within nations, including the United States, income inequality has worsened. But this seems not to matter to the promoters of this rapid deregulation of the global economy, the so-called neo-liberals, and their solution to whatever problems afflict us is, of course, more trade liberalization. Ironically, many of them spent the last 30 years associating the word ``liberal'' with social failure. In this instance, they may prove themselves correct. Nevertheless, it is the considered judgment of this administration and of the House of Representatives, albeit by a single vote, to continue in that direction. I expect this body will join with them by passing this trade promotion authority legislation. Thus, the Dayton-Craig amendment represents one of the last opportunities for Congress to assert its priority for the economic well-being of the American people over the capital-serving efficiencies of liberalized world markets. This amendment preserves Congress' ability to look out for the best interests of all Americans, especially the people who are on the losing side of the trade equation. And if we don't look out for them, it is a near certainty that no one else will. The Dayton-Craig amendment applies only to so-called trade remedy laws. They were enacted and put into law by previous Congresses and Presidents to protect American business owners, workers, and farmers from illegal or unfair trade practices, and to assist those Americans whose lives and livelihoods were irrevocably damaged by them. These trade remedy laws include safeguards in section 201, which provide for temporary duties, quotas, or other restrictions on imports that are traded fairly but which threaten serious injury to a domestic industry. They include anti-dumping remedies for the destructive effects of imports sold on the U.S. market at unfairly low prices, and countervailing duty relief from the negative impact of imports receiving foreign government subsidies. They also include section 301 of the Trade Act which authorizes the United States Trade Representative to investigate trade agreement violations and illegal foreign trade barriers which are harmful to U.S. businesses and exports, and to remedy those violations. All of these remedies are already subject to the rules established under the World Trade Organization and under the North American Free Trade Agreement. The United States and other WTO members must adhere to the Uruguay Round Stipulations on subsidies and countervailing measures. This is hugely important. This is the first time the United States has ever agreed to subjugate its sovereignty to an international organization. The folks who decried the Trilateral Commission and so- called one-world government, those who condemn the coordination of U.S. military forces with NATO, and those who oppose any U.S. adherence to international agreements, are strangely silent about U.S. subjugation to the economic dictates of the World Trade Organization. Heretofore, the WTO, has operated largely as the creation of the United States that it is. However, now that it is fully established and empowered with the unanimous consent of the participating countries and whose rules can only be altered by the same, any sovereign powers negotiated away in future trade agreements that are agreed to by this body will not be redeemable, which is all the more reason why Congress should be vigilant over them. The Dayton-Craig amendment says that Congress, along with the President, enacted these trade remedy laws, and only the President and Congress may eliminate them. They cannot be negotiated away by an unelected trade negotiator, albeit one selected by the President, who has a much narrower perspective than Congress, who has the specific objective to secure further trade agreements, and who may not share this body's perspective and concerns. Since a letter from 62 Senators opposing the inclusion of trade remedy laws in future trade negotiations was ignored, there is no reason to expect otherwise when those negotiations finally occur. So, when a new trade agreement comes to Congress, to the Senate, with the trade remedy laws of the United States altered, with their protections weakened, and with Congress' prior enactment of them overridden, then, if this trade promotion authority law is in effect-- as it is written now without the Craig-Dayton amendment--we will be faced with a take it or leave it proposition. We will have no discretion or latitude. It will be all or nothing. This amendment will permit--not require, but permit--Congress to separate those provisions in a proposed new trade agreement which alter existing trade remedy laws, allow the rest of the agreement to proceed along fast track, and then consider those trade remedy changes under regular Senate rules and procedures. Then, Congress can decide, as only Congress should decide, whether they must be given up for some larger gain. Then, we, or our successors, will be able to look our constituents in their eyes and tell them that we have acted in their collective best interests. Trade negotiators look at those trade remedy laws and they see words, or bargaining chips, or perhaps even nuisances to get rid of. We see people, our constituents, who elected us and who depend upon us to look out for their interests. So when words which protect them are going to be removed, those decisions should be reviewed by their elected Representatives. Last week, the trade ambassador said that you cannot be for this amendment and be for trade. There is great irony in an unelected official in the executive branch, which has no constitutional authority over trade, telling 535 elected Members of Congress, to whom the Constitution assigns the full responsibility for foreign trade, essentially to butt out of his domain. He was quoted as saying: This goes to the heart, of whether the Congress is going to try to negotiate with 435 Members of the House and 100 Senators, whether they want to go over to Brussels and all sit around together, or whether they are going to have the Executive Branch negotiate. My reply, Mr. Ambassador, is: You negotiate and then Congress will exercise its responsibilities under the United States Constitution. If our trading partners question those procedures, show them a copy of our Constitution. We bring government officials from all over the world here to learn about our system of government. This is another teaching opportunity. Under our Constitution, we do not permit one person--no matter who he or she is--to bargain away our laws. No one--not even the President of the United States--has that authority. And no one who understands our Constitution should seek that authority. While our country's future trade policies are debatable, the right of Congress to participate actively in setting those policies is not. For anyone to try to usurp that authority is seriously misguided. If it succeeds, Congress has failed, failed its responsibility, failed the Constitution, and failed the people of America. By adopting this amendment, the Senate upholds that right and that responsibility. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Contrary to what most people in this country probably believe, the Social Security Administration is extremely efficient, and, in fact, less than 1 percent of Social Security goes for administrative costs. The Senator cited some of the figures from the OWL report, which is an excellent document, about the disparities between men and women. I have seen the statistic that one-quarter of the retirees in America today don't receive any pension fund whatsoever. My experience in Minnesota would be that probably 80 or 90 percent of those are women, particularly older women who are widowed and often, with the older pensions, lose any benefit payments whatsoever once their husband dies. I wonder if the Senator from Michigan has had that same experience. Would the Senator say in Michigan that number applies?

Mr. DAYTON. The Senator is absolutely right. That is exactly the dilemma, the predicament in which so many elderly women find themselves. There is only one leg to that stool. As the Senator from New Jersey pointed out, with the average Social Security payment for women being only $750 a month, that is not much money on which to live. I think that creates part of the lure of the personal privatization which the Republican Commission has now come forward with, which, obviously, someone receiving that little amount of money would be tempted, enticed by something else. As the Senator pointed out very well, there is no reward without risk. I wonder if the Senator--certainly the Senator from New Jersey who spent a career in financial pursuits--is aware of anywhere where there is that potential for reward in the private sector without commensurate risk.

Mr. DAYTON. I compliment the Senator from New Jersey in bringing this important report to the Senate. He is to be commended. It is a very important topic, as we look ahead to the future of Social Security.

Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. In recent years, Americans have experienced an energizing infusion of Asian-based culture, which resonates in diverse folkways, cuisine, art forms, and religious beliefs and practices. In all these areas, I believe Minnesota is especially privileged, thanks to Asian American citizens who present a unique, vigorous dimension, both established and emerging. Therefore, I would like to highlight the ways that Asian Pacific Americans in particular have enriched our state. We who make Minnesota our home truly comprise an international community. The Asian Pacific American presence in my state dates from the late nineteenth century, when Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino settlers first arrived. Today, many more groups, such as the Koreans, Asian Indians, Tibetans, Hmong, Vietnamese, and Cambodians, have augmented Minnesota's Asian Pacific community. This growth is ongoing, and I am pleased to say that in my state, the Asian Pacific American population increased over 100 percent in the last decade. Furthermore, the City of Saint Paul is distinguished by the largest Hmong population in the nation. The Asian Pacific population has significantly contributed to the economic, social, and political fabric of Minnesota. In the Twin Cities of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Asian entrepreneurs have succeeded in re-establishing key business districts in areas once dormant, leading to the revitalization of entire neighborhoods. These Americans have further invested in Minnesota through unprecedented rates of home ownership. In greater Minnesota, Asian Pacific Americans are also being welcomed. For example, Warroad, Minnesota, always a notable breeding ground for great hockey players, is now also home to a small but vibrant Lao population. Moreover, I am very proud to say that Minnesota has elected our nation's first Hmong legislator, State Senator Mee Moua. The State Council on Asian-Pacific Minnesotans has chosen five individuals or groups who have made especially worthy contributions, and I would like to acknowledge these remarkable award winners. Joseph Hui, who has resided in Minnesota for 30 years, has built a successful business career, but, more importantly, he has given back generously through community service and philanthropy. He was one of the founders of the Asian Pacific Endowment for Community Development, a fund directed and operated by Asian Americans. The fund encourages different Asian Pacific communities to work together in providing social, health, educational, economic, and cultural services. Thus far, the fund has given approximately $300,000 in grant money to more than 60 organizations. Rita Mitra Mustaphi, a renowned choreographer, dancer, and educator, introduced the classical Indian dance form, Kathak, to Minnesota. She uses this 2000-year-old form of storytelling, essentially dance-poems, to explore bold, contemporary themes. She is the founder and Artistic Director of the Kathak Dance Theatre, which is the only professional dance theater of its kind in the Midwest. The theater received a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts to create and perform a new dance theater piece. Another artistic innovator, Rick Shiomi, is a leading Asian American artist. He is the founder of Mu Daiko, a taiko drumming troop, and the Artistic Director of Theater Mu, a group primarily cultivating new Minnesota playwrights and Asian American actors. Blending ancient artistic forms, traditions, and stories with contemporary ones, these performers are dedicated to the ideal of theater as a total sensory experience. Their unique work reaches new audiences through Theater Mu's annual festival and outreach performances at schools, corporate sites, and community organizations. The radio station KFAI, Fresh Air Radio, serving the Twin Cities since 1973, provides training opportunities in broadcasting to those who might lack the resources for formal training. Many of the station's volunteer programmers have recently arrived in the United States and, therefore, have the opportunity to broadcast in their native languages. Cultivating listeners not often served by traditional media, KFAI includes in its programming broadcasts which cater to the Indian, Khmer, Hmong, Vietnamese, and Filipino communities. Finally, I would like to make special mention of a courageous woman, Darina Siv. Until her death in March at the early age of 44, Ms. Siv was dedicated to helping low-income Cambodians, whom she served first as a social worker, then as executive director of the United Cambodian Association of Minnesota. Her book, Never Come Back: A Cambodian Woman's Journey, described her personal hardships after the Khmer Rouge took control in her native Cambodia. In America, she became a tireless advocate and was instrumental in securing state legislation that helps foreign-born social workers overcome license barriers. During Asian Pacific American month, I am happy to recognize the many ways--exciting, dynamic, complex, and subtle in which Asian Pacific Americans are making Minnesota a better, stronger, and richer place to live and work. It is important today and throughout the year, to celebrate these contributions.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I will yield even more so when the majority leader arrives. I thank the Senator from Idaho for his work on this. I think he has heard more about it from other parties than I have. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I rise in morning business to discuss an amendment which Senator Craig from Idaho and I are going to offer when we resume consideration of the trade bill. I wish to take a few minutes in morning business now to talk about it. It is an amendment that I believe will complement the intent of TPA. Others may view it differently. It is one Senator Craig and I developed out of our shared experiences working with and representing members of our respective States, Idaho and Minnesota, who have lost jobs, farms, and farm income because of trade policies. I first had the opportunity to work with the Senator from Idaho when Minnesota loggers and small business owners running sawmills were being harmed seriously--some put out of business, some losing their jobs--as the result of imports of foreign lumber and wood products coming into this country and to our State. I found that Senator Craig had been working on these problems for years before I arrived. I actually took his lead. He spearheaded a group of us working on the impact of sugar coming into this country on sugar beet growers in Minnesota and Idaho. I know he is someone who has a deep and abiding commitment to do what is right for the citizens of his State, as I hope I can demonstrate for the people of Minnesota. Madam President, you probably had this experience in your State as well. The trade policies of this country which have been in effect over the last couple of decades from one Republican administration to a Democratic administration and now to a Republican administration have relatively consistently encouraged the expansion of trade, the expansion of exports upon which a lot of jobs in Minnesota depend and on which a lot of businesses in Minnesota, large and small, have successfully and profitably expanded markets across this country and the world--grain traders, commodity traders, those who provide that transportation, those who finance the businesses engaged in all of this. There are a lot of winners in Minnesota, a lot of beneficiaries through jobs, through expanding businesses, through rising stock portfolios, who say, hey, more trade is better for us, who frankly cannot even imagine why I am torn on this subject. I find in the presentations and the discussions about trade authority, there is very seldom a recognition, even an acknowledgment, of the thousands of men and women whose jobs, whose farms, whose businesses, have been lost. And lost is not even the right word; they have really been taken away from them because of the impact of these trade policies. So recognizing that this legislation, the so-called trade promotion authority, is a high priority for the administration, that was passed by the House of Representatives, that, as the Senator from Oklahoma said earlier, the tradition of the Senate has been to support free trade in anticipation of the probability that final legislation will pass the Senate if we get to that point, I think this amendment is a crucial addition to standing beside and with those men and women in my State anyway, and I think elsewhere across the country, who are being harmed by these policies or who will be in the future. This amendment says if an agreement comes back that has been negotiated by trade representatives, acting at the behest of the President but not elected by the people of this country--comes back with changes in the trade remedy laws, which change--in most cases weaken--these laws that have been passed by the Congress, signed into law by the President of the United States, for the purpose of protecting those who will be harmed by these trade agreements, by illegal dumping of products--it has certainly been devastating to northeastern Minnesota, to the steelworkers there and across this country--that before those laws and their provisions can be altered or weakened or negotiated away or used as bargaining chips to get some other purpose achieved, the Congress has the authority--it is not required but it has the option--to remove those sections of the bill and put the rest of the agreement through the fast track, so-called, the procedures that will have been enacted into law, but to reserve the prerogative to review these changes, these measures, that are going to affect the kind of protection, the kind of safety net, the kind of assistance that Americans think they can depend on, cannot be taken away, cannot be altered, except by more careful consideration by the Senate and Congress. The fact that we have 26 Members of the Senate who are cosponsors and are in support of this legislation, 13 Republicans, 13 Democrats, men and women from all different parts of the country with all different perspectives and philosophies, says to me they have had this same experience in their own States with their own constituents, that they too have recognized that these trade policies have very mixed results in their States, and particularly those who are not the beneficiaries, who are going to be the casualties of expanded trade, the increased imports which have been, I think, really tilting our trade policies out of balance in a way that is detrimental to this country. Last year, the trade imbalance, the deficit in our trade, was $436 billion. We owed other nations $436 billion more from their imports than we received from our exports. In agriculture, well, there is still a positive trade balance, but that positive balance has been reduced. We have seen from NAFTA a flood of imports of food, of automobiles, of other manufactured goods, and our trade imbalance with Mexico has gone from being a slight positive in 1993 to a negative balance in the year 2000. Our trade balance with Canada has gone from being slightly in the negative to seriously in the negative in those 7 years. Again, I have seen in Minnesota men and women, farmers, workers, business owners, who have lost all of that, lost their hopes, lost their livelihoods, lost their homes, lost their pensions, lost their health care as a result of this. To me, it would be unconscionable to hand that over to an unelected representative of any President, any administration--previous administration, this administration, a future administration--and allow that situation to develop where that agreement would come back and we would be told, take it or leave it, up or down; either make that decision that is going to benefit people but disregard those who are going to be most harmed. I see the Senator from Nevada has returned, hopefully with some illumination for us. We have taken this opportunity to talk about the amendment.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I had been traveling around Minnesota a couple years ago while seeking this office, and I was stunned by the increasing number of students who were relying on loans and by the increased amount of money that undergraduates and graduates were building up in debt before they even got their first job in the workplace. It is $25,000 for somebody attending a 4-year public institution in Minnesota; $50,000, even in a couple cases over $100,000, for people who have come out of graduate programs. Have you had that same experience in South Dakota in the last few years?

Mr. DAYTON. Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. There have been certain characterizations made about those who are advocates for this amendment. I ask the Senator if he believes these characterizations apply to himself: That those who support the amendment are against trade of almost any kind, that we are against the administration, we want to be obstructionists to the administration's trade policies, and that we are xenophobic, against the rest of the world. Does the Senator consider himself as fitting in any of those categories? I don't consider myself to fit into those categories.

Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent that the chairman yield to me an additional 4 minutes.