[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 173 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16695-S16696]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          FAST-TRACK AUTHORITY

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, Congress is now trying to put in place a 
plan that will reduce the tax burden on the American people, produce 
growth, create jobs, and put us on a responsible path to a balanced 
budget.
  In the midst of this monumental undertaking, President Clinton would 
like to get Congress to give him new fast-track trade negotiating 
authority. He wants to negotiate more trade agreements with more 
countries. In fact, he has already started negotiations for new trade 
agreements even without fast-track authority.
  Mr. President, I believe it would be a mistake to extend new fast-
track authority at this time.
  There are a number of good reasons, but in my view first and most 
important is President Clinton's complete failure to explain to the 
American people why we need yet another trade agreement at this time. I 
believe the President's effort to get new fast-track authority has most 
Americans shaking their heads, wondering ``Why does the President seem 
to want to rush into more free-trade agreements with as many countries, 
regions, or trading blocks as he can?''
  Mr. President, the fact is we recently concluded two major trade 
agreements, GATT and NAFTA. I believe it only makes good common sense 
to step back a little and assess the results.
  The ink is hardly dry on the largest trade agreement in history, the 
Uruguay round of the GATT, which came into force on January 1 of this 
year.
  We do not really know what the impact of that agreement will be. We 
had many predictions last year, favorable and unfavorable, about the 
potential impact. But the agreement is unprecedented in its coverage, 
creating new rules for textiles, agriculture, services. It makes 
massive tariff cuts and lowers barriers worldwide. It establishes an 
entirely new and untested dispute settlement regime.
  We need time to assess the impact of what amounts to the largest 
restructuring of our trading relationships ever.
  No private entity, no corporation, no small business going through a 
fundamental restructuring would consider a new merger or acquisition in 
the middle of that process. Indeed it would be irresponsible. It could 
endanger the enterprise. So too for the United States as we implement 
the recent major restructuring of our trade relationships.
  Instead of new trade agreements, let us proceed with a proposal I 
made last year to ensure that our sovereignty is not compromised by the 
new world trade organization. Although I believe the United States 
stands to gain overall from the GATT Agreement, many Americans remain 
unconvinced that the WTO will benefit them in the long run. Indeed, 
there is one important way the WTO could be harmful, and that is if the 
new dispute settlement system runs out of control. We must never submit 
to decisions by an unelected WTO bureaucracy if it oversteps its 
mandate and pursues its own agenda. My legislation, which I had hoped 
to have passed by now, and I hope we can pass in the near future, would 
set up a Dispute Settlement Review Commission that would allow us to 
withdraw from the WTO if our rights are being trampled by bureaucrats 
in Geneva.
  This is the kind of legislation we need right now. We need this 
legislation because it will help to protect American workers and 
American jobs. We need to have this protection in place as soon as 
possible before the first WTO decisions start to come. In fact the 
administration supports my legislation. And yet the administration has 
been silent on this issue. We have had no cooperation in trying to pass 
and enact into law a bill that everyone agrees is good for America, 
good for working Americans, and good for the multilateral trading 
system. It provides insurance against harm, it is an insurance policy 
for our sovereignty. What could be more important? Certainly not more 
trade agreements, because we are choking on new agreements right now.

  It was just 21 months ago that we entered into another major trade 
agreement, the North American Free-Trade Agreement. The record for 
NAFTA is a work in progress. The verdict is not yet in. This is so for 
a number of reasons. The peso crisis is the most significant, but there 
has also been significant disappointment with the operation of that 
agreement, and with the level of cooperation we have experienced since 
it went into effect. The operation of the NAFTA dispute settlement 
mechanism for unfair trade cases has also raised serious concerns in 
Congress and in the private sector.
  So we need time to assess the real results of NAFTA as well. I do not 
know how President Clinton explains to the American people that the 
provisions of NAFTA, good and bad, should be extended to other 
countries when we do not yet have a clear picture of how NAFTA has 
benefited working Americans. We need to know how this agreement has 
helped the American family.
  Mr. President, I believe we need to step back from this unprecedented 
whirlwind of new trade agreements. We need a cooling-off period, a time 
to digest the results. We need to focus on our domestic house, on the 
actions we can take here at home that will improve our global 
competitiveness.
  But for some reason, the administration seems to be in a great hurry 
to pile on not just one, but many more trade agreements as soon as 
possible from Latin America to Asia to Europe. President Clinton seems 
to be saying ``Don't worry about it--I'll cut a new trade deal now and 
we'll figure out later if it was good for the American people.''
  I have no quarrel with any country that, as part of a program of 
overall economic reform, pursues a trade agreement with the United 
States. I admire and applaud countries that eliminate barriers to 
trade, that reform their economies, that improve the standard of living 
for their people, that attempt to open up to world trade, to reverse 
years and decades of ill-conceived, statist policies. Getting the 

[[Page S 16696]]
dead hand of government off the backs of the private sector results in 
explosive economic growth. The evidence of this is irrefutable as 
countries around the world throw off the shackles of protectionism, 
high tariffs, and trade barriers, to the great benefit and enrichment 
of their people.
  The United States is the most desirable market in the world. I 
understand why countries seek to gain ever better access to our market 
through trade agreements.
  And no one has been a bigger supporter over the years of breaking 
down trade barriers worldwide than I have.
  But Mr. President, a responsible, sober trade policy for America is 
not measured by the number of trade agreements we conclude with the 
rest of the world.
  A responsible, sober trade policy for America is measured by the 
benefit to the American people, to the American worker, and the 
American family.
  Mr. President, another concern that I have, and that Republicans 
generally have, with fast-track relates to our experience during 
approval of the two previous trade agreements.
  This administration has promised that it will add extraneous issues, 
such as labor and environment and maybe other issues, to any trade 
agreement it negotiates. I believe that linking trade to the agendas of 
worker rights and environmentalist activists would be a serious mistake 
and in the end would harm working Americans.
  Mr. President, I supported the NAFTA and GATT agreements because I 
support increased trade and opening foreign markets to U.S. goods and 
services.
  However, I did not support the way in which this administration used, 
and some would say abused, the fast-track procedures for those trade 
bills.
  The fast-track rules were the result of an agreement between the 
Congress and the President. The President agreed to consult with the 
Congress regularly and indepth on the details of trade agreements under 
negotiation. In return, Congress agreed to give up the right to amend 
legislation implementing a trade agreement after its submission to the 
Congress, and further agreed to consider the implementing legislation 
in a limited time concluding with an up-or-down vote, without 
amendment.
  The fast-track rules were crafted to provide a sensible way for 
negotiating the elimination of trade barriers with other countries. The 
purpose of requiring considerable consultation between the President 
and the Congress was to arrive at a consensus on the content of an 
acceptable agreement. If you did that, you did not need a lot of 
amendments. That was the original intent.
  The fast-track rules were never meant to operate as a vehicle for 
matters that lay well outside any consensus.
  Fast-track was never meant to be a vehicle for matters on which there 
was fundamental disagreement.
  The fast-track procedures were used effectively for a long time. 
Through four administrations trade agreements were negotiated and 
submitted to Congress under fast-track rules, and the process worked 
pretty well.
  But when the Clinton administration arrived, this changed.
  Despite warnings from Republicans, then in the minority, the 
administration insisted on labor and environment side agreements 
accompanying the NAFTA. We opposed these side deals for a simple 
reason: linking trade to other issues like these winds up hurting us 
more than others.
  Now the President has stated that if Congress gives him fast-track 
authority, he is committed to extending these labor and environment 
provisions to other countries in any trade agreement he concludes with 
them.
  Mr. President, this is unacceptable. We cannot and must not burden 
our trade relationships with the agendas of any number of special-
interest groups. The President seems to want to use fast-track once 
again to advance interests other than trade. We must not permit that to 
happen.
  During the GATT debate, we had a similar experience. Despite numerous 
warnings from Republicans, the President submitted an implementing bill 
that was full of provisions that had nothing to do with trade. One in 
particular was an incredible multimillion-dollar handout for a few 
telecommunications companies. It had no reason to be in that bill. It 
was strictly special interests, and some would say really special 
interests because of their links to certain people in the 
administration.

  These additional provisions could not be removed, because of the 
fast-track rules. Members of Congress in both Houses were powerless to 
act against this abuse of the fast-track procedures.
  Mr. President, most of us remember these events very clearly. We 
explicitly warned the administration at the time that stretching the 
fast-track rules to the breaking point would jeopardize reauthorizing 
fast-track in the future.
  Well, Mr. President, as they say, the future is now. I do not believe 
Congress should extend new fast-track authority until we have had an 
adequate cooling-off period following the 2 recent major trade 
agreements and until there is no possibility that the fast-track 
procedures can be abused. I also believe this is the view of the 
majority of the American people, and I happen to believe it is the 
majority of those of us in the Senate on each side of the aisle.

  The American economy is the most innovative, most technologically 
advanced and most productive economy in the world. I want to keep it 
that way. I want to make sure American goods, commodities, and services 
get a fair opportunity in the world marketplace. I want to tear down 
unfair trade barriers and make it clear to our trading partners that 
unfair trade practices that harm American companies and jeopardize 
American jobs will not be tolerated.
  Mr. President, we do have an obligation to set a higher standard for 
the world in the matter of trade relations and economic policy. And in 
discharging that obligation, we must never give in to the temptation to 
sacrifice real gains for mere appearances.
  We do have an obligation to demonstrate to our trading partners our 
seriousness of purpose in bringing about a more open world trading 
system.
  But this is not achieved through a haphazard rush to sign more trade 
deals with more countries as quickly as possible. Trade agreements are 
not trophies. A policy that treats them as trophies is wrong and is not 
in the best interests of America or of working Americans.

                          ____________________