The opinion's expressed in the following are those of the author.
In no way should they be misconstrued as being those of yours truly.<G>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fast track is the wrong track
I'm in favor of trade. The more the better. I think free trade is
good, and fair trade is better.
I support negotiating trade agreements with our trading
partners to lower tariffs and open markets. And for you
Smoot-Hawley hecklers, I don't sound like Mr. Smoot and
don't look like Mr. Hawley.
But, I've had a bellyful of the thoughtless ranting by
economists and politicians, and some editorial writers, about
free trade and "fast track." It's safe to say that none of them
has ever lost their job because of a bad trade agreement.
Let's take inventory. The U.S. has had 21 years of
uninterrupted trade deficits. Last year we hit a record $191
billion in our merchandise trade deficit. We've lost every trade
negotiation we entered over the past 20 years. We sign the
paper, shove it through the Congress and our trade deficit
goes up.
We do a trade agreement with Canada and our trade deficit
with Canada doubles. We do an agreement with Mexico and
our $2 billion trade surplus with Mexico collapses into a $16
billion deficit. We approve the GATT agreement, and our trade
deficit hits an all-time record high. Our trade deficit with Japan
stays at $50 billion to $60 billion per year. Our trade deficit
with China is mushrooming to well over $40 billion a year. That
is what we call success? Not where I grew up.
So if our trade policies aren't working, what do we do to
change them? The President asks for fast track authority to
negotiate new trade pacts and have them considered by a
Congress that is prevented from amending them. That is the
same tired policy that has failed us in the past. I think it's time
for some changes.
For starters, let's dispense with some of the shibboleths
usually hurled at those who oppose fast track trade authority.
This debate is not between those who believe in free trade and
those who don't. It is not between those who want to compete
in the growing world economy and a bunch of xenophobic,
anti-growth protectionists. I favor free trade. I want the U.S. to
be competitive in the global economy. I want U.S. businesses
to have greater access to foreign markets. I am pro-growth.
To make our trade policies work we have to address two
issues.
First, what are the rules of fair trade? Is it fair trade when a
producer in a foreign land can hire children, put them in unsafe
workplaces, pay them a dime an hour, dump chemicals in the
water and pollution in the air and then send the products from
their factories to store shelves in the United States? Should
U.S. producers who have to comply with child labor
standards, minimum wage requirements, anti-pollution laws
and more be forced to compete with those who have no such
restrictions?
The answer should be clear. The new global economy and the
rules of trade that support it must require responsible
compliance with standards that we know are reasonable and
fair, dealing with both labor and the environment.
Second, are we going to have the nerve and will to require
foreign countries to open their markets to American goods
just as we open the U.S. market to foreign goods? Trade must
be a two way street. Eliminating the huge trade deficits the
U.S. is experiencing need not lead to a restriction on imports -
rather it should persuade us to demand that foreign markets
be open to U.S. goods. We need to summon the courage to
make that happen.
When other countries do nothing to stop the pirating of our
intellectual property, we ought to take action. When other
countries violate our anti-dumping laws by dumping goods in
our country below cost, we ought to take action. When other
countries close markets they've previously agreed to open for
U.S. producers, we ought to take action. When our trading
partners begin running huge surpluses with us and restrict
access to their own domestic markets to U.S. producers, we
ought to take action.
So as we debate President Clinton's proposal to give him "fast
track" authority for new trade agreements, I intend to propose
new criteria for judging whether new trade agreements are in
the best interest of this country. Any trade treaties we
negotiate should do the following:
* Make progress in eliminating our trade deficit by increasing
U.S. exports and requiring free trade rules.
* Create more and better jobs and a higher standard of living
here at home.
* Prohibit "trap door" agreements that make tariff reductions
meaningless when huge changes in currency values occur
without any adjustments to tariffs.
* Include strict and mandatory enforcement provisions when
trading partners do not live up to their promises.
* Make certain that trade agreements do not weaken national
security or the U.S. industrial base.
Surprisingly, U.S. trade negotiators are not now required to
work for agreements that accomplish these objectives. Not
surprisingly, they have produced a long series of trade
agreements that don't measure up.
Sen. Byron Dorgan is a North Dakota Democrat
North America, United States of America, Eastern United
States, Midatlantic United States, District of Columbia
The Washington Times
Author: Byron Dorgan
December 03, 1997 |
