Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I say to my colleague also that if, by chance, after reviewing this, we could come to an agreement on this amendment, I will tell the leadership that we would have another amendment which we could vote on by 5 o'clock. So we would still have a vote at 5 o'clock, as the leadership wishes.

Mr. THOMPSON. If I may respond, the Senator has a floating list that I would be glad, when I get back, to sit down and go over with him. Frankly, I am evaluating several that I have prepared based on the debate and the remarks that are made. I would enjoy the opportunity to sit down and discuss with him and other Members some of the ones I probably will introduce in the next day or two.

Mr. THOMPSON. It seems to me what we are getting down to is that if a foreign availability determination has been made, the President has the discretion of operating under 211, going through the notice requirements, going through the consultation requirements, and going through the negotiation with foreign governments----

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. That is correct. But he may not proceed linearly. When a determination is made of foreign availability, if he at the outset wants to use his enhanced control authority under 201, he may do that. Then none of the provisions having to do with 212 would apply. Would that be correct?

Mr. THOMPSON. I am supposed to be a witness in the Judiciary Committee. I wonder if I could be allowed to lay down an amendment before I leave the Chamber.

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

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

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I suppose I am going to have to say something nice about Senator Gramm. In all honesty, I have a tremendous amount of admiration for Senator Gramm, and it was with great sadness that I learned a short time ago he decided not to run again. Regardless of what anybody else does here, I think this institution needs a Phil Gramm. The institution is going to have to come up with another one now, it looks like. But the institution has been better for his having been here. I know of no one who has more intellectual honesty and who is more fearless in the pursuit of the things in which he believes. More often than not, they are the things in which I believe. But that is almost beside the point. I want to express publicly to him my tremendous admiration for him and for the service he has rendered the State of Texas and our country. I will yield to anyone else at any time who wants to speak to this subject. But if not, I will continue on with the business at hand. I believe Senator Enzi wants to speak.

Mr. THOMPSON. I will use my 2 minutes. It doesn't sound like that bureaucratic mess we had earlier. These 14-day cases are streamlined where there is no controversy. We are trying to deal with a situation where national security might be involved. You don't know whether or not you want to object, if you are an agency, until you get into it. I have heard it referred to again that the agencies apparently do not want this, and it may be politically incorrect for me to say this, but it is quite obvious the administration has passed the word they want this bill passed without amendments, even to the point where they do not want agencies to be given the opportunity to ask for another 60 days, even in a matter of national security. I think that is extremely unfortunate. It is surprising to me, but apparently that is the case. However, it does not make it right. I ask my colleagues, in light of the proliferation concerns that this country has, in light of the developing technology, the fact that it is being proliferated around the world and posing a danger to us, that certainly in this export licensing process we can afford to give our agencies, such as the Department of Defense, a little additional time if they have a national security concern. It is not going to put anybody out of business, and it is not going to hurt the overall export process. And what if it does if we are saving something from being exported that otherwise should not be? It is a very simple matter to dispose of, but it is a very important matter to get right. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I strongly support the words of my good friend and colleague from Tennessee. I, too, would like to thank Chairwoman Murray and Ranking Member Shelby for their leadership on the Transportation Subcommittee. I give my full support to developing effective public transportation programs that serve the needs of all Tennesseans. Our public transit systems have not historically seen the level of federal support they need to develop properly. As our cities grow and our transportation needs change 279 active urban transit buses now exceed their 12-year useful service life. Additionally, there are 218 rural transit vans with mileage in excess of the 100,000-mile service life. The $12 million funding level provided in the House will improve public safety and reduce maintenance costs while ensuring that an adequate infrastructure is in place to better serve all the counties of our growing state. It is my sincere hope that the Conference Committee will restore the full funding level recommended by the House.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank my colleague from Tennessee for his work on this issue of great importance to thousands of our constituents. I eagerly await with him for action by the Conference Committee.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, reserving right to object, I wanted to ask whether or not the unanimous consent request covered the consideration of the Export Administration Act.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, my understanding was that there would be 2 full days of debate on the bill and amendments. Does the Senator state in the unanimous consent as to when the bill would be taken up? Would it be September 4 or is that left open?

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, if I may inquire, I believe we also discussed that the 2 full days--if that be the case--would be September 5 and 6. Cloture would not be filed before September 7. Is that correct?

Mr. THOMPSON. I have no objection.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, it seems to me one of the very few things that has been agreed upon in the civilized world over the last few years is the benefits of free trade. It is the source of much of the prosperity we have enjoyed in this country because our advances in technology have led to increases in productivity. It has put us in a very competitive position with regard to the world. Trade has been an integral part of that. It has lifted millions and millions of people out of poverty. As we see around the world, the expansion of free market philosophy sometimes leads to more democratic institutions. Very much of it is based on these economies opening up. Very much of that has to do with the benefits of free trade where people make the things that they make best and do the things they do best, open up their borders, turn their backs on protectionism, and engage in free trade with other countries. The most remarkable example of that recently, it seems to me, would be the country of China. We have seen that country under Deng, starting back some years ago, opening up that country's economy somewhat, as many problems we have with them. I will not go into that today. That is a different subject for another day. But we have some very serious difficulties with them in terms of nuclear proliferation, for example. There is a story just today about that in the press that is very disturbing. We will deal with that at the appropriate time. But we have to acknowledge that they have lifted millions and millions of their people out of poverty. They have bought into the notion that in order for them to prosper economically, in order for them to feed the 1.3 billion people they have, they are going to have to open up somewhat economically and they are going to have to engage in free trade. We believe in the engagement of free trade with them, even to the extent of the substantial trade deficit. I think it is about $84 billion in deficit we are now running with them. But it attests to our commitment that we have for the general proposition of the benefits of free trade. A third of the U.S. economic growth during the 1990s came from exports. Since the cold war, the United States has championed the values of democracy and free trade. Global free trade advances the democratic values of consumer choice, workers' rights, transparency, and the rule of law. Therefore, it pains me to see us begin to move away from the principles of free trade and to hold ourselves open for the criticism that we are violating the agreement into which we entered. The argument can be made that while the world is moving in one direction, we in some respects are moving in another. There are more than, I believe, 133 trade agreements around the world. The United States is a party to two of them. One of the ones that has been beneficial to all parties concerned has been NAFTA. It has been beneficial to my State of Tennessee. I think it has been beneficial to the United States in general. It pains me to see us move away from our solemn commitment. I think that is what the Murray provision does. I think that is the primary reason for the concern expressed by the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Texas because their opinion--and apparently the opinion of the President of the United States--is that provision violates our commitment under NAFTA; it violates our commitment to free trade. We are moving in the wrong direction. We are moving in one direction when the rest of the world seems to finally have been convinced of what we are supposed to believe in; that is, benefits of free trade. Trade benefits small businesses. Ninety-seven percent of all exporters are small businesses that employ fewer than 500 people. Free trade is an invaluable tool to economic development, oftentimes far more successful than direct aid. Trade encourages investment, creates jobs, and promotes a more sustainable form of development. Jobs created through trade often require higher levels of skills and create a higher standard of living for workers. It is to everyone's benefit--and certainly to this country's benefit--to engage in activities that raise the standard of living which, in turn, often leads, as I say, to demands for individual rights in countries where those are so sorely lacking. The combined effects of the Uruguay Round trade agreements and NAFTA have increased U.S. national income by $40 to $60 billion a year. Over 85 percent of NAFTA trade is manufactured goods, which grew by over 66 percent between 1993 and 1998. On the agricultural front, which is important to my State, one of every three acres of U.S. farmland is planted for export. So that is what is going on in the world. That is of what we are a part. That is in what we should be taking a leadership role. So when we are dealing with the primary trade agreement that we have, and dealing with our own hemisphere, and our own backyard, and our neighbors to the north and our neighbors to the south, and we, because of domestic, political, and economic pressure, willy-nilly do things that might be pleasing to certain, limited constituency groups but not only violate the agreement but violate the principles for which we are supposed to stand, when we do that, we are moving in a wrong and dangerous direction. The United States is better off today because of that commitment we made. I think the United States is better off today because of that agreement we made. The U.S. economy experienced the longest peacetime expansion in history. That was not because we sat still. That was not by accident. All 50 States and the United States territories participate in NAFTA, and almost all have reaped benefits from more liberalized trade with both Mexico and Canada. U.S. trade with NAFTA countries grew faster than the rate of global trade expansion. Overall, NAFTA has benefited the entire continent of North America through its promotion of competitiveness and lower prices for consumers. We all are very much aware of the fact that some folks have been displaced--some in my own State have been displaced--as we have gone through the adjustment our economy is having to go through now. We all know that as we move from an agricultural economy to an industrialized economy to a very high-tech economy that we have now--as we move from one of those areas to another, there are some displacements, and it is unfortunate. The Government should be helpful in legitimate respects to make sure that, as far as workers are concerned, for example, we are mindful of that. We have passed legislation, some of which workers in my own State have benefited from, to help make this adjustment come about, knowing that we have to make this adjustment, that we have to move from certain areas of our economy into other areas that are more competitive in the world economy and the world market that we have now. But overall, from the time NAFTA was signed until last year, the following things have happened: U.S. gross domestic product grew by over $2 trillion, unemployment in the United States fell from 7 percent to 4 percent, real income rose by an average of $2,500 for every American. Trade between the United States and Mexico has tripled since 1993 to over $250 billion in 2000. Total merchandise trade among the NAFTA countries was $656 billion in 2000. The United States now trades more with Canada than with the EU. Total United States trade with Canada has doubled to $400 billion. Trade with NAFTA countries doubled from 1993 to 2000, while U.S. trade with the rest of the world grew by half as much. So not only is free trade important, but this particular episode in our Nation's history with regard to free trade is especially important. The figures bear that out when looking at the American economy. On another related subject, during the 1994-1995 peso devaluation, Mexico experienced its worst recession since 1932, with a 7-percent decrease in GDP. During the same time, U.S. exports fell by 8.9 percent, while European and Asian exports fell by 20 to 30 percent. While in crisis, Mexico raised import tariffs on goods from all of its trading partners, with the exception of NAFTA members. NAFTA prevented the United States from experiencing the level of loss felt by both Asia and Europe. Trade creates jobs. Over 20 million new jobs were generated by the U.S. economy during the 1990s. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that by 1999 NAFTA had created over 685,000 export-related jobs in the United States. Over 12 million U.S. jobs now rely on trade in this country. Economists estimate that the $70 billion increase in United States exports to Mexico since NAFTA began created about 1.3 million new jobs. The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that 6 million U.S. jobs are dependent on NAFTA-related exports alone. This gives us some indication of the significance of what we are dealing with. Again, it pains me to see us move in a direction, not because we don't have a right to protect ourselves from trucks or anything else-- we can enter into agreements that do that. When we deal with the agreements to start with, we can enter into those things. We can implement those agreements in ways that protect us. All that is allowed under NAFTA. But we cannot have different requirements for our friends in Mexico than we have for our friends in Canada. That is just not right, and it is not compliant with NAFTA. With all of these benefits, I think it is important that we understand what is at stake. As self-centered as we might want to be--and I hope we are not, but even if we were, it is to our benefit to have a stable and a growing and a prosperous neighbor to the south, as well as to the north, for obvious reasons--for reasons having to do with immigration, for reasons having to do with the economy. That common border is not going to go away. Now that we have new leadership in Mexico, we have the opportunity to make progress in a lot of areas that we have not been able to for some time. Surpassing Japan, Mexico is now the United States' second largest trading partner. Since the agreement's implementation, Mexico's gross domestic product has increased at an average annual rate of 3.7 percent. I think we have a right--the Nation that came up with the Marshall plan, the Nation that rebuilt much of Europe and Japan after World War II--to be proud of that. Mexico's credit has improved as a result of NAFTA. Mexico has successfully paid back its loans from the 1995 peso crisis ahead of schedule. Early this spring, Mexico paid off all of its IMF loans. This successful recovery prompted major credit analysts to upgrade Mexican sovereign and corporate debt to investment grade. Thanks in part to the democratic influence of free trade, NAFTA played a significant part in making Mexico a more democratic country. NAFTA helped foster the civil society in economic development that enabled Mexico to successfully transition to democratic rule after several years of a one-party system. Those are some of the benefits of free trade in general. Those are some of the benefits to one of our trading partners. At this point in our history, when so much positive is going on in the world in terms of taking down barriers, in terms of intercourse of commerce and the flourishing of market principles in places heretofore unknown to them, we should be leading the world in all of these things. We should not be a part of only two agreements when the rest of the world is moving on. That is bad enough. But now we are doing things, little by little, that are taking us in one direction while the rest of the world seems to be going in another. We are now in the midst of debating trade or environmental and labor standards. We have entered into an agreement with Jordan, and we are very concerned about their environmental standards. They happen to have some of the better labor and environmental standards already in that part of the world. Now, for domestic reasons, we want to impose nontrade-related requirements on people with whom we want to trade. They in turn, if we do that, have the right to impose those same things on us and to take us to court, so to speak, over changes in our own law potentially. We don't give our President trade promotion authority. We have heard the debate on fast track over several years now. The President of the United States has not had the ability to enter into these agreements, putting us at a great disadvantage with regard to a large part of the world. Again, why are we so reticent? Why are we moving in one direction? Why are we becoming more closed and raising more barriers at a time when the rest of the world is doing what we have always said we wanted them to do in taking down barriers, entering into bilateral and multilateral agreements? I don't know why we would want to do that. I don't know why we would not want to give the President trade promotion authority. I do not know why we would want to hold ourselves up to the accusation of protectionism under these circumstances. Should people of that persuasion succeed in restricting the freedom of trade, it will be U.S. consumers and workers who will lose out. Trade barriers will never prevent low-wage or low-skilled worker displacement. New technologies and improved efficiency will always displace low-wage and low-skilled workers. I am afraid that is an economic reality. We need to be convinced, apparently, of the obvious proposition that if we are really concerned about labor standards and the environment in some of these other countries, we need to help them lift their economy up so that they can take care of those matters themselves. We are never going to make any permanent improvement because we try to coerce some small nation, through a trade agreement, to improve their labor and environmental laws. What we can do is enter into trade agreements with them that will let them participate in this global economy and in this prosperity that so many countries and so many people have enjoyed because of free trade and more open markets and which, as I said, in many cases leads to more democratic institutions. We are seeing that play out in Mexico as we speak, moving in the right direction. It is all a part of the same picture. It is a picture where free trade has the central role. When I look at the current debate we are having, it is unfortunate that it is taking some time. But as I look at it and as we are required as individual Senators to make decisions as to where we stand, we ought to think hard about exactly where we stand and where we ought to stand. All these general principles I have been talking about in terms of the benefits of free trade and how it has benefited our country and how it has benefited Canada and Mexico and how this particular free trade agreement has benefited all of us, all those principles apply to the issue at hand. That is, are we doing something on an appropriations bill, almost as an afterthought as it were, that is going to move us not only contrary to the provisions of the solemn undertaking that we made with regard to NAFTA but take us contrary to the philosophical beliefs and longstanding positions that this Nation has had? My understanding is that we can make changes or we can have requirements to implement the provisions under these agreements. We are free to do that with regard to Canadian trucks or Mexican trucks or anything else. We can implement this agreement in ways that will protect us, but we cannot change the agreement. We can't change the requirements, and we cannot give different treatment to Mexicans than we do Canadians. We just voted down an amendment that said simply that we need to treat Canadians and Mexicans alike because we are all three in the same agreement. That was voted down. How anybody could vote against that, I have a hard time understanding. We are getting down to some very core philosophies and beliefs. I am wondering what people will think about the United States of America in terms of a future trading partner when we cannot even reach a consensus on something such as that, which is not only the right thing to do, the clearly nondiscriminatory right thing to do, but it is the only thing to do to be in compliance with the agreement. I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON. I am happy to yield.

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, to me it means that we have to treat them and their people the way we treat ourselves and our people. That is a fundamental of trade and trade agreements, and something that is fundamental to this particular agreement. It has to do with the concept of equality and comity. It doesn't matter that one country is richer than another or has more population than another. It puts countries, from the standpoint of the agreement, from the standpoint of trade, on a basis of equal trading partners. We will treat you the way we treat our own people. I must say, if we violate that and we treat them worse than our own people or worse than another trading partner or partner to the same agreement, such as Canada, then obviously they are going to reciprocate. And they are going to treat our people--in this case, our truckers--seemingly, however they feel they are entitled in reciprocation of us violating the agreement.

Mr. THOMPSON. You mean Canadian.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, I would. I would wonder how we would view it if Canadians passed a law saying that American trucks had to buy insurance from companies that were domiciled in Mexico. I can't imagine anything that would be more contrary to the spirit I just described a minute ago. My understanding is--and the Senator can correct me if I am wrong--we can implement the agreement in several different ways. We are not bound; we can even do it different ways with regard to different trading partners, as long as it is an implementation under the circumstances that are presented in order to protect ourselves in ways we think are appropriate and reasonable. But we can't change the requirements of the agreement. That seems to me to be a flatout change of the requirements--basic requirements of the agreement, and it goes contrary to the spirit and the letter of the law with regard to that agreement. Under the agreement, you simply can't treat different trading partners in different ways or change the terms or the requirements of the agreement.

Mr. THOMPSON. I would say this would be worse than the hypothetical you mentioned about the Moon or the Sun because the situation you described there is within our discretion. The Sun and the Moon aren't, but, basically, as I understand what you read there, we are setting up a condition and basically saying we are going to discriminate until we comply with a condition that we have set up for ourselves. Quite frankly, it seems to be--and you might want to reread that original language you asked me about. It seems to me----

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, it seems to me that the situation you referred to a moment ago is pretty directly contrary to that provision you just read. (Mr. DAYTON assumed the Chair.)

Mr. THOMPSON. In other words, there is no such requirement for Canadian trucks? There is no such requirement?

Mr. THOMPSON. There is no such requirement imposed on trucks in the United States?