[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 27 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1945-S1970]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




WAIVING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE TRADE ACT RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT 
                    OF THE U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Under the previous order, the 
clerk will report Senate Joint Resolution 5.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 5) waiving certain provisions 
     of the Trade Act of 1974 relating to the appointment of the 
     United States Trade Representative.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe under the unanimous-consent 
agreement the amendment by Senator Hollings is in order at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as I understand, the pending business is 
that I send to the desk an amendment to the waiver amendment of the 
committee; is that at the desk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would observe that the desk does not 
have the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. The waiver amendment is the pending business. What is not 
at the desk is the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina to the 
waiver.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The observation by the Senator from Arizona is 
correct.


                            Amendment No. 19

 (Purpose: To require Congressional approval before any international 
trade agreement that has the effect of amending or repealing statutory 
 law of the United States law can be implemented in the United States)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 19.
       On page 2, after line 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF CERTAIN TRADE AGREEMENTS 
                   REQUIRED.

       No international trade agreement which would in effect 
     amend or repeal statutory law of the United States law may be 
     implemented by or in the United States until the agreement is 
     approved by the Congress.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair announces there are 3 hours equally 
divided on the amendment by the Senator from South Carolina.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Mr. President, I ask 
that the distinguished senior Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] 
be added also as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the amendment that has just been read is 
so simple, so fundamental. I am hearkening to our new Members of the 
U.S. Senate, just in January, a few weeks ago, ``I hereby pledge to 
support and defend the Constitution of the United States.''
  This is constitutional language, that no international agreement that 
would, in effect, amend or repeal statutory law can be implemented 
until approved by the Congress. Under the Constitution, article 1, 
section 8, it is the duty of the Congress to regulate foreign 
commerce--not the executive branch; not the executive branch.
  Obviously, to really change the law you would have to have three 
readings in the House and three readings in the Senate and signed by 
the President. The fact that this amendment, which I tried to make as 
clearcut and as principled as it possibly could be, where there would 
be no confusion, has been so vigorously opposed by the White House and 
certain ones in Congress that there is no doubt in my mind that with 
respect to foreign trade, with respect to global competition, we are in 
the hands of the Philistines, we are in the hands of the 
multinationals. Rather than the Congress controlling the multinationals 
and international trade, the multinationals, by this initiative, are 
controlling the Congress.
  What is the initiative? Well, they could not find any language to 
amend my amendment. They could not find anybody to really object to it. 
What they did do, then, was to say, well, we will get some letters 
written--incidentally, by people who had nothing to do with this 
particular part of the telecommunications bill--and the comments were 
that Mr. Archer of the

[[Page S1946]]

Ways and Means Committee over on the House side then sends a letter on 
the one hand, saying that he would blue slip this particular 
appointment of Barshefsky in that the Hollings amendment would involve 
revenues.
  You know that is not going to happen. I think they made some bad 
mistakes over on that side. I think they have sort of redeemed 
themselves from the contract. They certainly have redeemed themselves 
from three budgets. In 1995, they said the President was 
inconsequential and that they had three budgets, and whether you agreed 
or not, that is what they were going to do. Now they say, Mr. 
President, ``Please give us a second budget.'' They do not even give 
one, much less three. But I do not think they would revert back to 
nonsensical conduct and try to act like an appointment to be confirmed 
by the U.S. Senate wherein it had a rider that the law be obeyed, the 
Constitution be supported and defended. ``Protect and defend'' is the 
oath we take, and that involves revenues. But be that as it may, Mr. 
President, that is exactly what they have done. And more recently, they 
have come by--and I have been vitally interested--and one of the 
ambassadors in the United States Trade Representative's office was to 
be appointed ambassador in charge of trade there at Geneva--we have 
written letters and made calls to the White House--Ms. Rita Hayes. Now 
we have calls in, indirectly, that that can't be had or done. I think 
it was about to be approved--``unless Hollings gives up his 
amendment.''

  So they have tried every shenanigan in the world, which tells me--and 
should tell this Congress--that the executive branch is going to make 
its agreements, come hell or high water, and they could care less. Not 
a treaty, but just executive agreements. The media and everybody is 
supposed to go along and say, well, I think the Senator is right, but 
we have to go ahead with this appointment. They are changing the law. 
They admire the three readings in the House and the three readings in 
the House with respect to Ms. Barshefsky. She does not previously 
qualify having registered British Steel and foreign competitors. They 
passed that waiver out, and it no doubt will be adopted here in the 
U.S. Senate, but to just say ``provided further, that if she enters 
into an agreement that would amend or change statutory law, that before 
it be implemented, it first must be approved by Congress.'' Just as 
simple as that.
  So let's get right to the ``meat of the coconut,'' as they say, 
because this has been going on for 2 years. This isn't any last 
minute--one of the letters from one Senator said this is a last-minute 
attempt. Oh, no, this isn't last minute. We had hearings on foreign 
ownership of telecommunications. We have had testimony of the different 
entities. Mr. Reed Hunt, the Chairman of the Federal Communications 
Commission, who was at one time conspiring for this particular 
approach--I don't know where he is now, but I am checking him. I quote 
Mr. Hunt:

       I am concerned about the prospects of foreign monopolies 
     being able to buy into our markets while they are still 
     monopolizing their home markets. And as global media 
     developments occur, as the Congressmen mentioned earlier, we 
     must be attentive to the fact that if a foreign company is a 
     monopolist in its own country, it has a prospect of using 
     that monopoly to leverage unfair competition into this 
     country. I am concerned about that.

  That is in May 1995, almost 2 years ago.
  Mr. President, we also have the statement of the FBI and the DEA, who 
wrote, also, in May 1995:

       Even with the foreign corporation as privately held, we 
     believe that a foreign-based company could be susceptible to 
     the influence and directives of its own government. There are 
     numerous examples of foreign companies being used and 
     directed by their governments to carry out, or assist in 
     carrying out, government intelligence efforts against the 
     United States Government and all major corporations.

  That is a letter to the Honorable John D. Dingell, on May 24 1995, by 
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Judge Louis J. 
Freeh, and the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, 
Thomas A. Constantine.
  Mr. President, the law that we are talking about, and the two 
sections--section 310(a) of the statutory law of communications--``The 
station license required under this act shall not be granted to or held 
by any foreign government or the representative thereof.'' Section 
310(b) limits any owning or controlling interest to 25 percent.
  Now, I understand somebody is going to say the special trade 
representative never testified. We had numerous meetings. You have to 
know how the executive branch works. We haven't had any hearings from 
them once they got the agreement here in February, just last month--any 
hearings on the agreement, or anything else of that kind. They just 
gave away 100 percent in violation of 310(a). They didn't just do the 
25 percent in 310(b). They go in, as naive as get out, I can tell you 
that. I want to build a bridge back to the old-fashioned Yankee trader. 
Come in and say, look, we have the largest and the richest market; what 
can you come up with? Let's see what you propose and we will work with 
it. Instead, like goody-goody two shoes, this touchy-feely crowd that 
we have up here in Washington says, ``We will give you 100 percent and 
let's see what you come up with.'' Nippon Telephone & Telegraph says, 
``Thank you for the 100 percent, bug off, you get nothing from us.'' 
And you go down the list. No country gave us any kind of 50-percent 
ownership. Our best of allies and friends in international trade, 
Canada and Mexico, in NAFTA, said, ``No, you can't get a 50-percent.'' 
Under 50 percent. So you can see what a spurious approach they used, in 
violation of the law.

  So I talked to Ambassador Kantor at that particular time, back in 
1995, and Senator Byrd wrote a letter on April 3, 1995. And, again, 
Ambassador Kantor, the United States Trade Representative, came forward 
with his letter and acknowledged the law. I think that is the important 
part, because in his letter back to Senator Byrd on April 24, 1995--I 
am trying to congeal it so everybody understands it--I ask unanimous 
consent that this letter from Michael Kantor, dated April 24, 1995, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    April 3, 1995.
     Ambassador Mickey Kantor,
     U.S. Trade Representative,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Ambassador: The Senate will soon take up S. 652, 
     the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 
     1995, to promote competition in the telecommunications 
     industry. I am writing to solicit your views on the revision 
     of foreign ownership provisions, specifically the revision of 
     Section 310(b) of the 1934 Communications Act.
       As you may know, the Commerce Committee's reported bill 
     would allow the FCC to waive current statutory limits on 
     foreign investment in U.S. telecommunications services if the 
     FCC finds that there are ``equivalent market opportunities'' 
     for U.S. companies and citizens in the foreign country where 
     the investor or corporation is situated.
       I would like to have your assessment of the impact of this 
     provision for both enhancing the prospects of U.S. 
     penetration of foreign markets, and for foreign investment in 
     American telecommunications companies and systems.
       Specifically, what impacts and advantages can we anticipate 
     will result from enactment of this provision on the ongoing 
     negotiations in Geneva on Telecommunications which has been 
     established under the GATT, to be incorporated into the 
     General Agreement on Trade in Services?
       Second, which markets in Asia and Europe are now closed to 
     U.S. telecommunications services in such a way that action on 
     the basis of the concept of Reciprocity in the Senate bill is 
     likely? What timeframes for such action, if any, would you 
     contemplate?
       Third, what has been the position of nations whose markets 
     are closed to U.S. telecommunications services in the way of 
     justifying their lack of access, and what likely reactions 
     can we anticipate from those nations as a result of this 
     legislative provisions?
       What role do you think can be most usefully played by your 
     office in effectively implementing the provision that has 
     been recommended?
       Lastly, in analyzing the legislation reported from the 
     Senate Commerce Committee, do you have any suggestions as to 
     how the provision might be strengthened to better serve the 
     goal of opening foreign markets to U.S. telecommunications 
     services and products?
       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Robert C. Byrd.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will just read one line:

       By amending the legislation as we suggest, the Congress 
     would provide effective market opening authority for both 
     multilateral and bilateral negotiations on basic 
     telecommunications services.


[[Page S1947]]


  I emphasize the phrase ``by amending the legislation as we suggest,'' 
because you got the U.S. Trade Representative Barshefsky, she says, 
``You don't have to amend it now. I got agreement. Take it and like it 
or else.'' But that isn't what the U.S. Trade Representative said in 
1995. We heard about this. So on April 25, we wrote a letter--the 
distinguished majority leader, Senator Trent Lott, the distinguished 
Senator from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison, the distinguished Senator 
from Hawaii, Daniel K. Inouye, and myself.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter to the President on April 
25, 1996, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
           Transportation,
                                   Washington, DC, April 25, 1996.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing to express our concern 
     with the current negotiations governing trade in 
     telecommunications services. The United States has an open 
     and competitive market for telecommunications services. U.S. 
     companies are the most innovative in the world. Current 
     negotiations should not result in an agreement that 
     unilaterally opens the United States market while barriers, 
     both formal and informal, continue to keep U.S. companies out 
     of foreign markets.
       We are deeply concerned about the effects of any trade 
     agreement, including a review by a dispute settlement panel 
     of the World Trade Organization (WTO), on the independence 
     and integrity of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 
     Congress did not make any changes to the foreign ownership 
     limitations of the Communications Act when it enacted the 
     Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104).
       We believe strongly that the public interest test contained 
     in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, must be 
     retained and that current practices governing foreign 
     investment not be altered. Any change in current U.S. law and 
     FCC practices as a result of any trade agreement should be 
     done only with the approval of the Congress in accordance 
     with our Constitutional obligation to regulate foreign 
     commerce.
       With kindest regards,
           Sincerely,
     Ernest F. Hollings,
     Daniel K. Inouye,
     Trent Lott,
     Kay Bailey Hutchison.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we cite thereon the independence and 
integrity of the Federal Communications Commission. ``Congress did not 
make any changes to the foreign ownership limitations of the 
Communications Act when it enacted the Telecommunications Act of 
1996.''
  What really occurred was, on the Senate side, we said, fine, we will 
go along on a majority percentage of ownership by a foreign entity if 
there is reciprocity. If there is an equal opportunity for U.S. 
companies to own and control, we will let them own and control, under 
certain circumstances, with, of course, Judge Freeh's and Mr. 
Constantine's inhibitions, and we had the same concerns. We would study 
them and go over them very closely. We had reciprocity with the 
snapback provision. I authored it. We put it in the bill after hearings 
and said, look, if the country changes its mind or comes under improper 
control and they kick us out, snap back, kick them out. Fair is fair. 
We thought that very reasonable to move an agreement on the 
international telecommunications. But the representatives of the White 
House, in particular the Special Trade Representative, now called U.S. 
Trade Representative, started dealing with Mr. Oxley on the House 
side. And we were in the conference.

  So all during 1996 in that particular conference, we worked around 
and we worked around. Finally, in December, I talked to our friend 
Mickey Kantor, the Ambassador. I said, ``Mickey, we can't get together 
on this one. There is not going to be any change. Whatever agreement 
you make will just have to come back. Maybe that is the way. If you 
want some change in the law, then come on back to Congress.''
  We have debated it already now for 3 years. We would be glad to get 
together on it. But with all the facets of the upgrading and the 
revision of the 1934 telecommunications act and considering all the 
various decisions made over a 60-year period, we couldn't agree.
  So Ambassador Kantor said, fine, that is what they would do. However, 
in the early part of the year when we came back--again negotiating all 
during 1996--to the Congress just a couple of months ago, we kept 
hearing again that we were somehow going to be ignored and that they 
were making offers over there.
  Mr. President, on February 4, 1997--again Senators Robert Byrd, Byron 
Dorgan, Daniel Inouye, and Fritz Hollings--the four of us joined in a 
letter to the White House saying that the USTR should not commit the 
United States to a trade agreement that limits the scope of the public 
interest test administered by the FCC, and any changes to current U.S. 
law should be done only with the approval of the Congress.
  So it was clear in January and February, long before they made the 
agreement, that we were watching closely as best we could. I met on 
January 17 with Ambassador Barshefksy. I want it clearly understood 
that at that particular time we meant exactly what we said. I cautioned 
her. It was on January 17. I had already met. That is why we sent that 
February letter. When I met with Ambassador Barshefksy, it was crystal 
clear to this Senator. I have been up here 30 years. I am the senior 
junior Senator. And my friend Strom says, ``You had better get used to 
it.'' But I dealt with these trade representatives way back into the 
1950's, 40 years ago. I have handled clients as a practicing lawyer, 
when the individual continues to not answer the question and is sort of 
hugging up to you and says, ``I want to work with you, I want to work 
with you, I want to work with you.'' I said to Ambassador Barshefksy, 
``Madam, I do not want you to work with me. I want you to work with 
that statute. Don't go over and say you did not know anything about it 
because we have been in the debate, and you are going to have many 
Members really turned off on this one, and we will have to take 
action.'' But it was quite apparent to me with that ``I want to work 
with you'' stuff that she had no idea of working with us in good faith. 
Of course, now we know.
  As reported in the Journal of Commerce on February 19, 1997:

       The United States decision to end its statutory 
     restrictions on foreign investment in this sector was crucial 
     to carrying along a global deal in which the rest of the 
     world has made varying levels of commitment to similarly open 
     their markets.

  So, to end the statutory restrictions, we have not extended the 
statutory restrictions. Nothing has been happening. There has not been 
three readings in the House nor three in the Senate. We haven't even 
debated it here this year. But they already have the trade press 
quoting exactly what the public official of the U.S. Government is 
saying. Here we are all in the uproar. We have the special committees, 
the independent prosecutors, ``Get them, get them, foreign influence on 
policy. We can't have anybody give us a contribution and influence 
policy.'' And over here, while we are not looking, a public official of 
the U.S. Government is giving it away in violation of section 310(a) 
and 310(b) of the communications act. So, yes, I talked to Members. I 
said, ``I just want to make it crystal clear that either we are going 
to go to conference''--like our lawyer friend Sullivan, who said, ``I 
am not a potted plant''--``or else we will let the executive pass its 
own little laws, and we can go on home and forget about trying to 
work up here to set some valid policy.''

  So thereby is the amendment.
  Mr. President, it is interesting. I must report to you that even 
while Ms. Barshefsky couldn't get it, I read that the Canadian official 
reported in the Wall Street Journal--and, I quote again, prior to the 
amendment--``We think that when you look at the overall package, our 
offer is every bit as good as the American offer.'' However, Canada 
``has serious reservations about the United States proposal because it 
won't be backed by U.S. legislation.'' At least the trade negotiator 
from Canada got my message. I never have talked to that individual. But 
I can tell you now, we could not get through. We couldn't get through 
at all.
  You have to understand along this line, Mr. President, because you 
are from the hinterlands where people think straight, that you can tell 
why this crowd up here operates in the beltway and miasma totally of 
their own dreams. And when we as Senators go

[[Page S1948]]

home--Oneita Mills, which just a couple of months ago closed down, was 
just not a complicated operation making T-shirts. But I got there some 
35 years ago when I was Governor--and I am proud of it--in a little 
country town of Andrews, SC, and I got 487 employees, and Washington 
says, ``Don't worry about it. What we need is retraining, retraining, 
retraining.'' The former Secretary of Labor, my friend Bobby Wright, 
that is all he thinks: Skills, skills, skills, retrain. We have skills 
coming out of our ears. We manufacture automobiles. They didn't go to 
Detroit. We never made one. But we have the skills, and we put in there 
a technical training system. I put it in. In 1961, we broke ground up 
there in Greenville on a garbage dump. I guess EPA would catch me now. 
But that is where the school is. And I broke ground for 16 others. We 
got the skills.
  But back to Oneita, they said, ``Retrain, retrain; get another job; 
we don't have enough skills. You don't understand the problem. We up 
here in Washington understand the problem.'' Nonsense. Assume that they 
retrain as computer operators; tomorrow morning you have 487 computer 
operators. The average age at Oneita was 47 years of age. Are you going 
to hire the 47-year-old computer operator or the 20- or 21-year-old? 
You are not going to assume the retirement costs and the health costs 
of the 47-year-old. They are out.
  Yes, I see it when I look at that GE plant that I brought in from 
Brazil. In the competition they said, if you want to sell those 
transformers to us, you are going to have to move your plant. So when I 
brought one to South Carolina, they closed the plant down and GE is 
gone, moved offshore.
  Malaysia, Baxter Medical. I brought that one in, but we are still 
giving tax incentives to invest overseas, so they closed down last year 
and they have gone to Malaysia. Saturday before last, Sara Lee in 
Hartsville, with 187 jobs, gone to Mexico.
  We lost, in the year 1995, 10,000 textile jobs in South Carolina, and 
I think an equal amount this past year. I am trying to get the figure. 
When they talk about educate, educate, educate, educate here at the 
White House, they better buy a few books and read them themselves. They 
better get hold of ``Looking at the Sun,'' by James Fallows, or 
``Blindside'' by Eammon Fingelton or ``The Future of Capitalism,'' by 
Les Thurow, or our friend Bill Greider, ``One World, Ready or Not,'' 
and, of course, the most recent book by Robert Kuttner ``Everything For 
Sale.'' You begin to sober up and understand what the head of Motorola, 
in Malaysia said as quoted by Mr. Greider that the people of America 
have no idea in the Lord's world what is happening to them.
  What we are doing is making the exception the rule. And what is the 
exception? The exception is free trade, free trade, free trade. Adam 
Smith, market forces, market forces. After World War II, that was a 
valid contention. We had the dominant auto industry. We wanted to 
foster capitalism in the emerging Third World. We were looking for 
freedom and democracy to be spread into Europe and into the Pacific 
rim. So we taxed ourselves by billions for the Marshall Plan and 
thereupon coaxed our industries to invest overseas. And invest they 
have.
  But if you want to see the sheep dog gobbling up the entire flock, 
you ought to watch these multinationals that we created. The nationals 
went over. They resisted it at first. They could not speak the 
language. The air flights were not good. They did not get good food on 
them or anything else of that kind. But gradually they learned that in 
manufacturing, 30 percent of volume is in labor cost--payroll. And you 
can save as much as 20 percent in a typical manufacturing entity by 
moving to a low-wage country. So it is that an entity, a manufacturing 
company that has $500 million in sales can keep its sales force, its 
executive office back here at the home headquarters but move its 
production, its manufacture to a low-wage country and make itself $100 
million, or it can stay here, continue to work its own people and go 
broke.
  That is what is going on. How do you get that through the news pages 
so they understand it?
  So the nationals gradually became over the 50-year period since World 
War II, multinationals, and then the national banks, Chase Manhattan 
and Citicorp, as of 1973, made a majority of their profit outside the 
United States. So you have got the multinational corporations and the 
multinational banks. And thereupon you have them making their money and 
coming back in with the consultants and the takeover of all the think 
tanks and everything else.
  I can bring you right up to date. They just established a chair at 
the Brookings Institute on free trade, and do you know who is financing 
it? Toyota. Toyota. So Brookings comes and says, this is great about 
free trade. Oh, sure, those multinationals, they joined up with the 
foreign countries. The foreign countries want to dump everything. The 
multinationals want to manufacture and dump everything back here.
  Then, of course, the retailers. The retailers, we proved here in many 
a debate, do not lower their price. They make a bigger profit. So every 
time we bring up a reciprocal trade measure or try to get customs 
agents, which are needed because there is over $5 billion in 
transshipments in violation of our agreements, whenever we try to get 
that, the retailers are up here pigeonholing every Senator.
  So you have the multinationals, the multinational banks, the 
consultants, the campuses, the think tanks, and then read ``Agents of 
Influence,'' by Pat Choate, and that was back 7 years ago when Japan, 
one country, had a $113 million retainer of--I don't know how many law 
firms or whatever it was around here--representatives. I got up at that 
time the total salaries of all the House Members, 435, and all the 
Senators, 100. Of the 535, we were only paying to have represented the 
people of America some $71 million. Japan was better represented in 
Washington at $113 million.
  Read the book and you will see how these U.S. Trade Representatives, 
after putting in time here, went to represent the other side. That is 
why we have the waiver. Senator Dole said you cannot represent a 
foreign entity and then come in here and represent us. But, of course, 
the Finance Committee is in a fix, and there we are. There we are, in 
the hands of all the lawyers around here. There are 60,000 lawyers 
registered to practice in the District of Columbia. That is more 
lawyers than the entire country of Japan. And they come around here and 
they hate lawyers, they hate lawyers. They are all billable hours. Get 
yourself charged on an ethics charge and try to find one for less than 
$400 an hour. They have never been in the courtroom. They never tried a 
case. They come around here. They ought to all go to work for O.J. Fix 
that jury. Fix that Congress. That is what we have on us, and you 
cannot get a word for anybody to represent the reality of this global 
competition.
  There are two schools--two schools of international trade. One, of 
course, is Adam Smith, the market forces, fostered by David Ricardo, 
comparative advantage, comparative advantage. But the other school, 
Friedrich List, which is almost top secret in this body: The strength 
and the wealth of a nation is measured not by what it can consume but 
by what it can produce. And that is the global competition. None of 
them have gone down the road of Adam Smith. They have all gone down the 
road of mixed economies, and that is what built the United States of 
America. That is what built this great economic giant, the U.S.A.
  The earliest day after we had won our own freedom, the Brits 
corresponded back to our forefathers and they said, now, as a fledgling 
little colony here, you have gotten your freedom. You trade back with 
us what you produce best and we in Great Britain will trade back what 
we produce best--free trade, free trade, free trade. Alexander Hamilton 
wrote a book that there is one copy of under lock and key over here at 
the Library of Congress. I will not read the booklet. We have had a 
copy of it in my file. But in the line, Hamilton told the Brits, Bug 
off. We are not going to remain your colony. We are not going to ship 
our natural resources, our timber, our coal, our iron, our wheat, our 
farm stuffs, and you ship back the finished products. We are going to 
make ourselves economically strong. And the second bill that ever 
passed this U.S. Congress in its history--the first had to do with the 
seal of the United States--but on July

[[Page S1949]]

4, 1789, the second bill to pass this Congress was a tariff bill of 50 
percent on 60 different articles. We started with protectionism, 
protectionism, protectionism.

  Later, when we were going to build a transcontinental railroad, they 
told President Lincoln we could get the steel from England. He said, 
No, we are going to build our own steel mills. And when we are 
finished, we will not only have the transcontinental railroad, but we 
will have an industrial steel capacity.
  Again, in the darkest days of the Depression, when people were in 
food lines, Franklin Roosevelt, with his Economic Recovery Act, put 
in--what?--put in subsidies for America's agriculture, payments to the 
farmers that continue today, and protective quotas. And therein is the 
wonderful success story of America's agriculture.
  So, we say, ``Preserve, protect, and defend.'' We have the Army to 
protect us from enemies without, the FBI to protect us from enemies 
within, we have Social Security to protect us from the ravages of old 
age, Medicare to protect us from ill-health--we can go right down the 
functions of Government. When it comes down to a competitive trade 
policy, we are in the hands of the Philistines, the multinationals. 
They are pulling our strings. They want fast track. They do not want 
any debate. They want to just pass the bills and, if you don't do it, 
we will make the agreement anyway and bag it. Bug off. That is what 
they are telling us. So we put in our amendment.
  I have had long experience in this field. I testified during the 
1950's. I came up here and testified before the old International Trade 
Commission, and Tom Dewey represented the Japanese. He chased me around 
the room for a couple of days, and he said, ``Governor, what do you 
expect the Third World emerging countries to make? Let them make the 
shoes and the clothing, the textiles. And we, in turn, in the United 
States, we will make the computers and the airplanes.''
  Now, they do not realize it--yes, they are making the shoes: 89 
percent of the shoes on the floor of this Congress are imported; two-
thirds of the clothing in this Chamber is imported. They are making the 
shoes and the clothing, the textiles, but they are also making the 
cameras, the watches, the electronics, the machine tools. You can go 
right on down the list. And the computers and the airplanes--all of it.
  Wake up, America. The majority of that Boeing 777 is made offshore, a 
good bit of it in China, the People's Republic of China. There are some 
of them who want to say Communist China, we are going to get a 
Communist China airplane to ride around in. That is how far we have 
come, but they do not want to admit to it.
  So, there we are. What we have is a situation of the typical promises 
they make. I am prepared to get into those promises, Mr. President, 
but, perhaps, I see my distinguished colleagues have been very patient 
with me. I guess they would be glad to be heard at this time, so I 
yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, under the unanimous-consent agreement, an 
hour has been provided for the chairman and ranking member of the 
Finance Committee for debate on the resolution. I will yield myself 
such time as I may take from that hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to voice my strong support for 
Charlene Barshefsky as U.S. Trade Representative. Her nomination was 
favorably reported by a unanimous vote of the Finance Committee on 
Thursday, January 30, 1997. It is evident that the nomination of 
Ambassador Barshefsky has wide bipartisan support in the Senate. This 
is not surprising when one looks at the impressive record she has 
compiled as a trade negotiator at the Office of U.S. Trade 
Representative, first as Deputy USTR and then as acting USTR.
  During her nearly 4 years at USTR, Ambassador Barshefsky has 
succeeded in negotiating an impressive list of multilateral and 
bilateral trade agreements aimed at opening foreign markets to U.S. 
exports. She has also distinguished herself as a vigorous advocate and 
defender of U.S. trade interests. For example, most recently, 
Ambassador Barshefsky concluded an important agreement on insurance 
with the Japanese--a matter I was actively involved in on behalf of the 
United States insurance industry. If this agreement is fully 
implemented by the Japanese Government, it should result in substantial 
new opportunities for United States insurance providers.
  Similarly, at the World Trade Organization Ministerial in Singapore 
last December, Ambassador Barshefsky was successful in pushing other 
nations to conclude a landmark agreement to eliminate tariffs on 
information technology products. Once put into effect, this Information 
Technologies Agreement will result in billions of dollars in savings to 
U.S. companies and consumers.
  However, Ambassador Barshefsky has also shown that she can reject bad 
agreements. She refused to enter into an agreement on trade in 
financial services that could have left U.S. financial service 
providers in a worse position than before. Similarly, during the 
negotiations on telecommunications services last spring, she had the 
resolve to walk away from the table when other countries had presented 
patently insufficient offers to open their telecommunications markets.
  Her hard-nosed stand in the telecommunications talks forced countries 
to make substantial improvements in their offers, and the result was a 
historic agreement reached on February 15 to liberalize trade in basic 
telecommunications services.
  The Agreement on Trade in Basic Telecommunications Services will save 
consumers hundreds of billions of dollars and will allow our 
telecommunications industry to compete in foreign markets that were 
previously closed to them.
  Given these accomplishments and her demonstrated toughness and 
resolve on behalf of U.S. interests, I think there is no question but 
that Ambassador Barshefsky is extraordinarily well qualified for the 
position as U.S. Trade Representative. Indeed, her achievements, 
negotiating skills and professionalism remind me of another able woman 
USTR, Carla Hills.
  We enter a time when we greatly need as U.S. Trade Representative 
someone with the qualifications that Ambassador Barshefsky brings to 
the position. The next USTR will be called upon to manage a number of 
difficult trade issues, including the increasingly complicated trade 
relationship with China.
  Specifically with respect to China, we face a ballooning trade 
deficit and increasing tensions on trade matters with that country. 
Moreover, we will soon enter again into the annual debate over whether 
China should continue to enjoy normal trade relations with the United 
States, at a time when congressional views on this question will be 
influenced by China's action during the reversion of Hong Kong to the 
People's Republic this July.
  Ambassador Barshefsky will also be responsible for negotiating with 
China to ensure that it enters the World Trade Organization on 
commercially viable terms, which provide for meaningful market access 
and a commitment from the Chinese to observe the basic rules of the 
WTO.
  In addition, Ambassador Barshefsky will be the administration's point 
person with respect to the difficult issue of renewal of fast-track 
negotiating authority. She will also carry the responsibility to ensure 
that the trade liberalization initiatives through the Free Trade Area 
of the Americas, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, and the 
Trans-Atlantic Marketplace proceed according to schedule.
  These are all important issues, and I am most confident that they 
will be handled appropriately working with someone like Charlene 
Barshefsky.
  I would like to comment on the issue of the Ambassador's work for the 
Government of Canada and the Province of Quebec while practicing law in 
the private sector.

[[Page S1950]]

  Questions have arisen whether this work may fall within the terms of 
section 141(b)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended in 1995 by the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act.
  That provision prohibits the President from appointing any person to 
serve as Deputy USTR or U.S. Trade Representative who has directly 
represented, aided, or advised a foreign government or foreign 
political party in a trade dispute or trade negotiation with the United 
States. In my opinion, the vagueness of this new law and the fact that 
there was no debate or legislative history on the provision when it was 
added to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, make it difficult to determine 
whether it covers or even should cover Ambassador Barshefsky's work in 
the private sector.
  In order to resolve this matter, the President formally requested 
Congress to enact legislation waiving the law in this instance. Senator 
Moynihan and I agreed that under these circumstances, a waiver was 
warranted and, therefore, we jointly introduced Senate Joint Resolution 
5 to waive the prohibition.
  For those who may have questions or concerns about this waiver, I 
want to point out that Congress has previously passed legislation to 
waive a statutory requirement on who may serve in a particular 
Government position with respect to a specific nominee. For example, in 
1989, Congress passed a waiver of the law requiring that only a 
civilian may be appointed head of NASA, so that Rear Adm. Richard 
Harrison Truly could be appointed NASA Administrator. In 1991, 
Congress, once again, passed a waiver of the law requiring that only a 
civilian may be appointed head of the Federal Aviation Administration 
so that Maj. Gen. Jerry Ralph Curry could be appointed FAA 
Administrator.
  I would also like to say specifically with respect to Ambassador 
Barshefsky that as Deputy USTR, she has been exempt from the 
prohibition in the Lobbying Disclosure Act. She has been forthcoming in 
providing information to the Committee on Finance about the nature of 
her work while in private practice.
  Moreover, in response to a question from me at her nomination 
hearing, the Ambassador stated that she had never lobbied the U.S. 
Government on behalf of a foreign government or a foreign political 
party.
  So under these circumstances, and in the interest of moving her 
nomination as expeditiously as possible, the entire Senate Committee on 
Finance agreed that a waiver was appropriate in this case and voted 
unanimously for the joint resolution. Therefore, I hope that all 
Members of the Senate will also agree that the waiver is in the best 
interest of confirming this nominee who clearly enjoys broad bipartisan 
support and has already demonstrated that she is eminently qualified to 
serve in that position.

  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise, as is so frequently and 
pleasantly my lot in this Congress, to support entirely the major 
statement made by the chairman of the Committee on Finance, our revered 
Bill Roth of Delaware.
  As he stated just now, this proposal for a waiver, a very technical 
matter, a prudent matter, comes to the floor of the Senate as a 
unanimous action of the Committee on Finance. Just last week, we had a 
revenue measure which also came to the Senate with the unanimous 
agreement of the Finance Committee and was duly enacted and is now, in 
fact, law. The President signed that measure.
  We are acting today at the request of the administration, which has a 
very proper principled concern that if there is any question about the 
application of this statute, then let that question be resolved by a 
waiver, which is what we are doing.
  In the specific instance, Mr. President, as an attorney in practice 
here in Washington, Ambassador Barshefsky provided legal advice to the 
Government of Quebec on softwood lumber countervailing measures--I do 
not fully claim to understand that--and to the Government of Canada 
itself.
  As the chairman has observed and noted--was she seeking to influence 
actions here in the Congress? She gave legal advice. I cannot but doubt 
that there are any number of solicitors in Ottawa who provide advice to 
American firms on trade matters between the United States and Canada. 
We, after all, have enjoyed a free trade agreement for nearly a decade 
and more and have been the closest economic partners for a century and 
more.
  The capacities that Ambassador Barshefsky brings to this job are 
formidable to the point of being dazzling. She is a master of the 
subject and has a capacity for advocacy of the American position and 
American interests that is surely unequaled in our time. The chairman 
referred to one of her predecessors, Carla Hills, who was equally 
distinguished in this manner.
  There has not been a more dramatic example of American diplomacy--
because we are talking about relations between nations--at its finest. 
When the much-announced, much-proclaimed agreement on 
telecommunications last year found the other nations unwilling to make 
the kind of reciprocal agreements that we required which were in our 
interest and where there were times when negotiators from any country, 
including our own, would settle for less than what might be appropriate 
in order to get an agreement, Ambassador Barshefsky did no such thing. 
Charlene Barshefsky did no such thing. She walked out of the 
conference, only to come back in the recent weeks with a triumphant 
telecommunications agreement of the very highest importance to this 
country.
  She did it because she is a firm representative of the U.S. interests 
and can be someone of just a little hard edge when that seems 
important. Her arrival in a place like Singapore is front page news. I 
hope she would not mind that on certain Asian missions she is referred 
to as the ``Dragon Lady,'' although she has disarming, personable 
qualities. She is a tough negotiator.
  I make this point simply because there is one overriding issue upon 
us right now--as a trading nation, as the world's largest trading 
nation, and the sponsor of the World Trade Organization--and that is, 
as the chairman indicated, the terms on which the People's Republic of 
China will be granted admission to the World Trade Organization, the 
terms which are going to make it be the real test of that organization. 
And it will be decisive to its future.
  It started well. It took a long time to get going. As the chairman 
knows, in the Dumbarton Oaks agreements that were reached with the 
United Kingdom at the end of World War II, we contemplated there would 
be three major international institutions: The International Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development, which we know as the World Bank; the 
International Monetary Fund; and the International Trade Organization--
three international organizations, the latter to advance the reciprocal 
trade programs that had begun in 1934 under Cordell Hull and the 
administration of President Roosevelt after the calamity of the Smoot-
Hawley tariff of 1930.
  The World Bank was duly established. The International Monetary Fund 
was duly established. The International Trade Organization fell afoul, 
came to grief, if you will, in the Senate Finance Committee. And so it 
was a matter of some institutional satisfaction to the committee in the 
103d Congress to report out the legislation in which we joined, as had 
been negotiated, the Uruguay Round, the World Trade Organization to 
succeed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which had a much 
more limited, although indispensable, role in the period that followed 
our rejection of the ITO. And now we have the World Trade Organization.
  The terms on which you enter this agreement and have membership in 
this organization require an economy and economic practices very much 
disparate, very much at a distance, if that is the correct term, from 
those practices and that economy which we observe in the People's 
Republic of China.

  The terms on which entry can be negotiated are going to be complex 
and crucial. And we need a negotiator who can say no. The one thing 
Beijing needs to understand is that they will be across the table, or 
at a round table, in Geneva with a negotiator who can say ``No, 
period.'' Other than that, I think prospects for a successful, perhaps 
staged, entry are good. It certainly

[[Page S1951]]

should not be dismissed. But it must be understood we are not going to 
reach agreement for agreement's sake, and to that end we have confirmed 
in the U.S. Senate the appointment of a U.S. Trade Representative who 
can say, no--will do, has done.
  So, Mr. President, I have the great honor to join with our chairman 
in this unanimous action of the Committee on Finance in reporting to 
the floor this proposal for a waiver just to be on the safe side of the 
legal question that might arise--and will not when we are finished 
today--and also, of course, the nomination of the Ambassador which will 
follow in executive session.
  I see my colleague from Iowa is on the floor. Mr. President, I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes from the time 
on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, would you please notify me when I have 
used 14 minutes, because I want 1 minute on the Hollings issue as well.
  Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Ms. 
Charlene Barshefsky as United States Trade Representative. Ms. 
Barshefsky has served as acting USTR since April 1996. So we are all 
familiar with her work. I have personally worked with her and her staff 
on several issues in the past year. And I had the opportunity to watch 
her in Singapore, at the WTO ministerial, negotiate the Information 
Technology Agreement. Based on her job performance and her 
international reputation as a strong advocate for U.S. interests, I am 
prepared to support her nomination today.
  Mr. President, the next 4 years will be crucial for U.S. trade 
policy. We are beginning our fourth year under the North American Free-
Trade Agreement and third year under the World Trade Organization. The 
U.S. Trade Representative must closely monitor the implementation of 
these agreements to ensure they are working to open markets to American 
exports.


                        Fast-Track Negotiations

  The USTR will also serve as President Clinton's point person in 
several key negotiations. First, she will have to negotiate with 
Congress on fast track authority. As you know, Mr. President, fast 
track means that Congress grants to the administration its authority to 
negotiate trade agreements. Once an agreement is reached, it must be 
ratified by Congress within a specified period of time and is not 
subject to amendment.
  Fast track is necessary because Congress, alone, has the 
constitutional authority to enter into trade agreements. But as a 
practical matter, other nations are reluctant to negotiate agreements 
with the President, that may later be modified by Congress. So I do 
believe it's necessary that Congress grant fast track authority to the 
President.
  But fast track is a significant delegation of power. So its crucial 
that Congress carefully tailor this delegation in order to accomplish 
its goals. And it's important that the President, in carrying out this 
delegation, negotiate within the parameters of the authority granted to 
him.
  Herein lies the problem. Congress and the President often have 
different ideas of what should be included in trade agreements. This 
administration has made it clear that they want the authority to 
negotiate on labor and environmental issues under the fast track 
process. But most of us Republicans don't believe that these issues 
should be part of trade agreements.
  So Congress has not given the President fast track authority since 
1994. And our foreign trading partners now doubt the desire of the 
United States to lead on trade issues. We are being left by the 
wayside. For example, after 3 years of NAFTA we are beginning to see 
very positive results. Through the third quarter of 1996, for instance, 
exports to Mexico just from my State of Iowa are up over 34 percent. 
The three NAFTA nations are now the world's largest trading bloc. And 
it's time to begin looking at expanding this free trade area to other 
nations in the Western Hemisphere.

  But this cannot happen without fast track. So I implore Ms. 
Barshefsky to negotiate with Congress in good faith to achieve fast 
track. Let's put aside our partisan differences. And let's remember 
that trade is the focus of these agreements. The United States cannot 
continue to insist on addressing other issues within the context of 
trade agreements.
  Issues such as environmental and labor standards are very important. 
But there are avenues other than trade agreements that ought to be 
pursued to influence the behavior of other countries. And the expansion 
of trade, itself, with another country can be an effective inroad for 
making change.
  So let trade agreements stand on their own. They are difficult enough 
to negotiate without taking on the weight of these other issues. I'll 
have more to say on fast track as negotiations progress with the 
administration.


                       China's Entry Into the WTO

  Mr. President, I hope that Ms. Barshefsky does not have to spend all 
of her time negotiating with Congress. She also faces very critical 
negotiations on admitting China as a member of the World Trade 
Organization. These negotiations could affect the U.S. trade balance 
for decades. I am reminded of Japan's entry into the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade in the 1950's. It seems that we are still paying 
for lowering the standards to let Japan into the GATT.
  In the area of agriculture trade, which is very important to my 
State, these negotiations may determine whether China becomes our 
largest export market or our biggest competitor. The stakes are 
extremely high for American farmers.
  That's why I'm concerned that some members of the Clinton 
administration want to let China into the WTO at any cost. So I took 
the liberty of asking both Secretary of State Albright and Ambassador 
Barshefsky about the terms of China's entry. I want to quote from their 
answers in order to get their opinions on the public record.
  Secretary Albright said,

       We have requested that China make significant commitments 
     to liberalize its agricultural trading regime, including 
     reforming its state trading system, making substantial tariff 
     cuts, eliminating unjustified sanitary and phytosanitary 
     measures, and binding its subsidy levels.

  She also stated:

       If China is to join the WTO, we will need to have a 
     commercially acceptable protocol package of commitments by 
     China to open its markets in-hand before we will agree to 
     China's accession. That means real market access for U.S. 
     goods and services, including agriculture.

  Then I asked Ms. Barshefsky to comment on Secretary Albright's 
statements. She said,

       I fully agree with the two above statements. China's WTO 
     accession can only occur on commercially meaningful terms. 
     And, just as you quote Secretary Albright, that means market 
     access for our goods, services and agriculture to the fastest 
     growing economy in the world.

  Mr. President, I am pleased with the way that both Ambassador 
Barshefsky and Secretary of State Albright responded to my questions. I 
hope this will continue to be the policy of their agencies.
  I understand that it is very important to integrate China into these 
multilateral organizations. I have always believed that we can 
encourage change in China more effectively if we engage them 
economically. But we cannot sacrifice the interests of American workers 
and farmers by allowing China to subsidy their industries while keeping 
their markets closed.
  So I will continue to monitor very closely the ongoing negotiations 
with China. And I encourage Ms. Barshefsky to continue to take a hard 
line on this issue. I'm reminded of a meeting that I had with Ms. 
Barshefsky in Singapore when we were attending the WTO ministerial 
meeting. Since it was reported in the local press, I don't think I'm 
breaching any confidences by repeating it here in the Senate.
  There was a meeting of the Quad nations, which is the United States, 
Canada, Japan, and the European Union, concerning China's entry into 
the WTO. The local Singapore newspaper reported that Minister Leon 
Brittan of the European Union argued that bringing China into the WTO 
was so important that conditions of entry should be relaxed. The 
Japanese minister disagreed very strongly with this position. And 
apparently Ms. Barshefsky concurred with the Japanese minister.

[[Page S1952]]

  I repeat this incident just to point out that there are different 
views on this issue. Many nations will seek to treat China with ``kids 
gloves.'' So it is crucial that the United States play a leadership 
role in assuring that our interests are protected.


                            NAFTA Expansion

  A third area of negotiations that could be significant in the next 4 
years is the expansion of the North American Free Trade Agreement. 
President Clinton promised back in 1992 that Chile would become a part 
of the NAFTA. But the lack of fast track authority has undermined this 
promise. Now, Chile has moved ahead and signed a free trade agreement 
with Canada. And they have also become an associate member of Mercosur.

  This is a good example of what happens when Washington fails to lead. 
The rest of the world moves on without us. And the consequences are 
very real in terms of U.S. jobs and standard of living.
  Let's just take Chile, for example. Chile has the potential to become 
a very important market for United States agricultural exports. Over 
the last 10 years, the Chilean economy has grown at an average rate of 
6.5 percent and real per capita income is up 50 percent. And since 
1984, poultry consumption has risen 60 percent, pork consumption over 
45 percent and beef consumption over 30 percent.
  The United States currently supplies most of the feed grain Chile 
uses to support their livestock production. But this market could be 
put in jeopardy. Chile is increasingly turning to neighboring countries 
with whom they have preferential trade agreements to supply 
agricultural products. So the United States' failure to lead on trade 
has a real impact in terms of lost markets and lost opportunities.
  I also ask the President and Ms. Barshefsky to begin taking a hard 
look at other nations in the Western Hemisphere for NAFTA expansion. 
Brazil and Argentina have already moved ahead and formed their own 
customs union, the Mercosur, with Paraguay and Uruguay. And the 
economies of the Caribbean nations have been hard hit by the increased 
trade between Mexico and the United States So they would like to enjoy 
NAFTA status.
  This administration needs to articulate its vision of how free trade 
should proceed in the Americas. Soon. Or it will be the United States 
who is left out in the cold.


                              Agriculture

  One last issue I would like to discuss, Mr. President, is 
agriculture. In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton 
mentioned that the United States is now exporting more goods and 
services than at any other time in its history. I am glad he did that, 
because those of us in Washington need to articulate the benefits of 
free trade. I was disappointed, however, that the President failed to 
acknowledge the contribution of agriculture, which is the ``shining 
star'' of our trade balance.
  As most sectors continue to run trade deficits, our farmers continue 
to produce food that the entire world wants to buy; 1996 was another 
record year for agricultural exports, totaling over $60 billion. This 
resulted in a trade surplus in agriculture goods of $26.8 billion. 
Which is the largest surplus of any sector. Since our total trade in 
merchandise suffered a $187.6 billion deficit in 1996, agriculture is 
truly a shining star.

  But that isn't to say we can't do better. The Uruguay Round 
agreement, ratified by Congress in 1994, was really the first step in 
opening up global trade for agriculture. That agreement not only 
lowered tariffs and quotas for ag products. It also addressed nontrade 
barriers, such as unjustified health and safety concerns.
  The agreement's sanitary and phytosanitary provisions mandate the use 
of sound science when setting health and safety standards for imports. 
No longer is protectionist government policy or politics supposed to 
decide whether a certain product is allowed into a country. Sound, 
scientific standards must be used.
  Not surprisingly, these provisions are the subject of several current 
disputes. The European Union's ban on U.S. beef and their failure to 
certify our meat packing plants for export are just two examples. And 
there are many more. The Clinton administration must vigorously enforce 
these important provisions with our trading partners. We can't continue 
to allow other nations to breach their trade agreements in order to 
keep out our agricultural goods.
  The stakes have never been higher. Our farmers have become more 
dependent on world markets for their income. The revolutionary farm 
program enacted last year begins to lessen the Government's role in 
agriculture. The result is that, according to the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, up to 31 percent of all farm income will come from foreign 
markets by the end of the decade. I don't know too many farmers who can 
afford to give up 31 percent of their income.
  Beyond our current disputes, the next round of agricultural 
negotiations at the WTO are set to begin in 1999. Ms. Barshefsky will 
be a key player in these negotiations. That is why I was concerned 
about recent staffing decisions at the U.S. Trade Representative's 
office.
  On the morning of Ms. Barshefsky's confirmation hearing at the 
Finance Committee, the Journal of Commerce ran a very disturbing 
article. The article pointed out that the top two agriculture staffers 
at USTR had been replaced with a political appointee with no 
agriculture experience.
  I had a telephone conversation and an exchange of letters between Ms. 
Barshefsky. She is convinced that these decisions will make her office 
more responsive and effective on ag issues. So I am willing to defer to 
her judgment and her right to hire her own staff. I will, however, be 
overseeing her performance on these issues.


                               Conclusion

  Mr. President, I have discussed several issues that I believe 
President Clinton and his nominee for USTR, Charlene Barshefsky, must 
lead on in the next 4 years. The last 2 years were a disappointment for 
those of us who believe in the benefits of international trade. The 
likes of Pat Buchanan and the AFL-CIO called the shots on trade for the 
1996 Presidential candidates. The focus was on lost jobs and companies 
moving offshore.
  The press ignored the multitude of stable, high-paying jobs that 
trade has created in this country. And they ignored the benefits of 
free trade to the consumers of this country. Let's not forget that 
tariffs are simply a tax imposed on goods that consumers buy.
  The President and Ms. Barshefsky must use their positions as leaders 
to articulate the benefits of free trade. Tell the American people how 
workers and farmers benefit from free trade policies. Tell them how 
much consumers save on their groceries and clothing bills because of 
free trade. Articulate your vision for expanding economic opportunity 
in this country by selling our products overseas. Leadership is sorely 
needed.
  President Clinton, I believe you have chosen the right person in 
Charlene Barshefsky. But you will ultimately be measured by your 
willingness or failure to lead the American people toward a brighter 
future in a global economy.
  Mr. President, I would also like to say a brief word on the Hollings 
amendment. It seems to me that Senator Hollings is really concerned 
with a fundamental question that we all must answer. That is, what is 
the relationship between Congress and the President in making trade 
policy. In other words, does the President have the authority to enter 
into international agreements, that change U.S. law, without 
congressional consent?
  Despite the debate that you will hear today, the answer to this 
question is relatively simple. Under our Constitution, the President 
only has the authority that Congress has granted to him. During the 
fast track debate, which I hope we'll have this year, Congress will 
define the limits of the Presidential authority on trade matters.
  But let's be clear about one thing. The President does not have the 
authority to change U.S. statutory law without congressional action. 
That is why Congress had to approve implementing legislation after the 
President signed the NAFTA agreement and the Uruguay round agreement in 
recent years. The President did not have the authority to unilaterally 
consent to these significant changes in U.S. law.
  That is why I believe this amendment is unnecessary. But I also think 
it could be dangerous. The amendment

[[Page S1953]]

is drafted so broadly that it could subject an agreement to 
congressional approval every time it affects a minor regulation or 
administrative practice. In my opinion, this would result in very few 
trade agreements being consummated. Our trading partners would never 
have the assurance they were negotiating an agreement that would be 
recognized by Congress.
  Look at just what we have accomplished in the last few months, 
negotiating the Informational Technology Agreement and the 
Telecommunications Agreement. These landmark agreements will result in 
thousands of high-paying jobs being created in the United States. I 
don't believe these agreements would have been possible given the 
chilling effect of the Hollings amendment.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Hollings amendment and 
then vote to confirm Charlene Barshefsky. It's time to focus on moving 
this country ahead by negotiating new agreements and opening new 
markets to U.S. exports.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my very distinguished colleague 
from New York. Not only the residents, citizens, and voters of the 
State of New York, but the rest of us in the country are very fortunate 
to have in the U.S. Senate the Senator from New York. He has added so 
much to our understanding of historical issues, cultural issues, and 
institutional memory. I just want to thank the Senator very much for 
all he has done for us.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I support strongly the nomination of 
Charlene Barshefsky as U.S. Trade Representative. Why is that? Although 
the Senator from South Carolina raises very important issues--and I 
underline that; they are extremely important--I think we can't wait. We 
have very important trade issues facing us at the moment. We have a 
superb candidate in Charlene Barshefsky, who is awaiting confirmation. 
I believe we have no alternative, no choice, but to do the right thing. 
And the right thing is to get on with it, let her get on with the job, 
and let's confirm her as our USTR. At the appropriate time, at a later 
moment, we will take up the issues raised by the Senator from South 
Carolina, and they are very important issues indeed.
  I might remind everyone that our international trade is growing 
dramatically. When Congress created the position of USTR just over 20 
years ago, imports and exports, together, made up only about one-eighth 
of the U.S. economy. Today, international trade makes up nearly a full 
third of our economy. That is a dramatic increase, from one-eighth to 
one-third, in just over 20 years. Last year, exports of goods and 
services reached a total of $835 billion, and in agriculture, which is 
the largest industry in my State of Montana, we saw exports hit $60 
billion last year.
  (Ms. COLLINS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BAUCUS. I might say, too, Madam President, that the people 
understand this. Last year they came from all over Montana to a trade 
conference I hosted on how we can establish better trade relationships 
with and engage more deeply with China. People came from all over our 
State. I was amazed at the success of that conference. The Chinese 
Ambassador was there, and also, I might add, we invited our U.S. 
Ambassador to China, the Honorable Jim Sasser--he very much wanted to 
come but was unable because of a last moment conflict.
  I might also remind us that American imports also hit a record of 
about $949 billion last year. We imported more than we exported. That 
may not be so good. But the point is that we as Americans are competing 
more than ever before against foreign competition, whether it is in 
heavy industry, high technology, or agricultural services. It all 
underlines the importance of trade in general and also the importance 
of being sure that we have a top-notch trade negotiator to make sure it 
is all fair. And we certainly have that in Charlene Barshefsky.
  What has she done? For my State of Montana, I'll mention one thing in 
particular. She and her predecessor, Mickey Kantor, worked vigorously 
to enforce agreement with Canada to restrict the deluge of grain coming 
down to the United States as near as 1993 and 1994. Wheat ordinarily 
received in the United States was about 1.35 million metric tons of 
Canadian grain. In those 2 years it rose to about 2.4 million metric 
tons. It depressed prices in the American markets and violated, 
frankly, a tentative, implicit agreement with the Canadians.
  I must say I was very impressed with the vigor and enthusiasm with 
which Charlene Barshefsky helped negotiate that agreement. Because of 
her work, Montana farmers got some confidence that trade would be fair.
  Second, exports of beef. This is the first time in American history--
in 1996--when we exported more beef than we imported. A lot of beef 
producers in the United States are concerned and have the impression 
that we import more than we export. That has been true in the past.
  I might say that about 5 years ago we imported about 2 million pounds 
of beef and we exported only about 75,000 pounds, in that magnitude. 
But in the last 5 years it has reversed, and for the first time, in 
1996, we exported more. We exported more beef than we imported because, 
again, of the vigorous efforts of our trade negotiators in opening up 
foreign markets for American products.
  I am sure other folks from around the country understand and have 
similar stories that they can pass on to us.
  She has done a terrific job. And we need someone of her caliber on 
the job full time, as we enter a new era in tackling very difficult new 
issues.
  I might remind us that for most of the 1980's and 1990's, trade 
policy revolved around three major areas: in the Uruguay round of GATT, 
NAFTA, and our market access problems with Japan. These areas still 
remain on our agenda. We have to monitor the WTO. We have to monitor 
the NAFTA closely. And our trade imbalance with Japan remains our 
largest bilateral deficit yet, although it is being surpassed by that 
of China.
  It is only fair to say that after a great deal of hard work from 
Charlene Barshefsky and the USTR staff that our performance with Japan 
has improved markedly. Counting goods and services, exports are up from 
$75 billion to over $100 billion last year; quite an improvement.
  As important as these issues are, we now must look ahead to two new 
strategic challenges in trade. First is whether to negotiate new trade 
agreements, and, if so, what should they be? For example, the 
administration has pledged to work toward a hemispheric trade agreement 
and also to pursue market access in Asia through the Asia-Pacific 
Economic Cooperation Forum, and through bilateral agreements.
  These are broad, long-term, important goals. Much about them remains 
to be decided. But the administration will soon ask for fast-track 
authority to make any serious steps forward, and it is clear that 
Americans have a right to expect greater market access from these 
countries.
  I look forward, as we all do in the Senate, to hearing from the 
administration as to what specific agreement it envisions and how these 
agreements will address contentious issues like treatment of trade-
related labor and environmental issues. When that is available, in 
principle, I believe the Congress should grant fast-track authority. 
And I will work with Ambassador Barshefsky and the administration as to 
what the terms are, of how broad the scope is, so that we have in the 
Congress a very good mutual agreement and partnership with the 
administration as we work together to develop these trade agreements.

  The second is the integration of formerly Communist countries into 
the world trade system. China, Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam, and other 
post-Communist nations make up about a third of the world's population. 
They are large producers of manufactured products, primarily 
commodities, and agricultural goods. All hope to enter the WTO, the 
World Trade Organization.
  Their reform efforts are commendable but remain incomplete. Most of 
these countries retain pervasive subsidies, poorly developed price 
systems, and close links between government and business which make 
them particularly challenging candidates for WTO membership. Weak 
accession protocols could make market access very difficult for years 
to come and could also

[[Page S1954]]

promote dumping in a wide range of areas.
  China is the largest of these countries and the most immediate 
candidate for WTO membership--not to mention that it is the world's 
largest country and the fastest growing large economy. So its WTO 
access will have enormous consequences in its own right, and it will 
very likely serve as a model for others.
  I will have more to say on this subject at a later date. But the USTR 
and Congress must be very careful and very rigorous. China and other 
WTO applicants must meet international standards not only on 
traditional tariff and quota issues but also on national treatment, 
trading rights, transparency, subsidies, and safeguards against import 
surges, and many other issues. On our side of the table, we must be 
willing to address the question of permanent MFN status for these 
countries if we are to gain the full benefit of their WTO membership.
  These are difficult and complex issues, but I am confident that 
Ambassador Barshefsky is the right person to take them on. I can think 
of none better. She is terrific. She is intelligent, tough, capable, 
and she has proven herself one of the best public servants America has, 
and we need her on the job.
  I support the nomination and I support the waiver to make it 
possible. And while the Senator from South Carolina has an amendment 
which raises a very serious and very important issue, that is one which 
we should bring through the normal committee process. It should not 
stop the nomination of Charlene Barshefsky. We need a tough negotiator. 
We have her right before us. We need her now in Geneva. During this 
week WTO is attempting to negotiate terms with China. We need her there 
to negotiate for us.
  I warmly endorse her nomination. I hope my colleagues will do the 
same.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished manager 
of this bill.
  Madam President, I wish to express my wholehearted support for 
Ambassador Barshefsky. In my dealings with her over the years, I have 
found her to be a skilled and certainly an expert trade negotiator, who 
has worked tirelessly on behalf of U.S. interests. I have no doubt as 
to her integrity and her commitment to this job. And I believe that 
view is shared by every single member of the Finance Committee, all of 
whom have worked closely with her. Thus, I urge my colleagues to 
support her nomination with a strong show of support in the upcoming 
vote.
  Before we vote on the nomination, Madam President, we must first vote 
on the amendment to Senate Joint Resolution 5 offered by the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings. The 
amendment requires that any trade agreement that in effect amends U.S. 
law must be approved by Congress.
  I must say that this amendment puzzles me. Trade agreements to which 
the United States is a party and the call for changes to U.S. law, have 
no force of law whatsoever until implementing legislation is passed by 
Congress. Congress always has the final say.
  The USTR takes pains to ensure that Congress is involved in every 
step along the way in these trade negotiations. As a member of the 
Finance Committee, I can personally testify to the fact that the USTR 
provides regular and, indeed, frequent--indeed, in abundance, a 
plethora of--briefings on all of the international discussions.
  During 1995 and then again in 1996, the USTR provided literally 
hundreds of briefings to Members and more than a dozen committees on 
ongoing trade issues and responded to approximately 200 congressional 
requests for information every month. That is what was going on in the 
USTR's office. The Finance Committee staff is briefed exhaustively, as 
are the staff involved with several other committees. Any Member who 
has an interest in a particular issue can request personal briefings. 
That has been the process, not only during this administration but 
during prior administrations. It is the right process. Trade, 
obviously, is not solely the privilege of the executive branch but a 
responsibility conferred by the Constitution on the Congress.
  Do Congress and the administration always agree? Of course not. 
Indeed, if the disagreement is strong enough, the administration runs 
the risk of Congress flatly rejecting the arguments in question. Thus, 
in this process is the built-in enforcement mechanism that constantly 
keeps individuals in touch.
  So the amendment that is being proposed puzzles me. It does seem to 
reiterate current process but there are two words that give me pause. 
The words ``in effect.'' What exactly does ``in effect amend or repeal 
statutory law of the U.S.'' mean? Is it a reference to regulations? 
Regulations are issued under statutory authority. Is it a reference to 
the administration officials changing the law by themselves? But the 
Constitution does not allow that. Only Congress can change U.S. law.
  So it seems that the amendment may be aimed at the recently concluded 
telecommunications agreement and at certain provisions of that 
agreement. As I have outlined, the process of negotiating trade 
agreements takes into account the individual views of Members of 
Congress. The end results of trade agreements may include certain 
provisions that some of us do not like. I can clearly remember Senator 
Danforth of Missouri was not too pleased with the final provisions of 
the Uruguay Round on subsidies. He did not like it. Yet, he worked with 
the administration on the implementing legislation and at the end of 
the day chose to give the agreement his support.
  Disagreement with provisions of final trade agreements is going to 
happen. Clearly, with 435 Members of the House and 100 Members of the 
Senate, there are going to be disagreements with the administration. To 
minimize these, we individually or in groups make sure the 
administration is aware of our views. We go to the STR during the 
negotiating sessions and say this is what I am concerned with. This is 
what we are concerned with in my part of the country. And at the end of 
the day the agreement may or may not be satisfactory. If we feel 
strongly enough that it is not satisfactory, we are free to express our 
views, that is, vote against the proposal, vote against the treaty.
  So my conclusion, Madam President, is twofold. First, it simply is 
not clear what this amendment would do if it is enacted. Any 
legislation with an unclear meaning simply, in my judgment, is not wise 
legislation to enact.
  Second, if the amendment is to express displeasure with a particular 
provision of, say, the telecommunications agreement, we already have in 
place a system that takes into account such views. I might also note 
that I understand from the leadership of the Finance Committee if this 
amendment, the Hollings amendment, is adopted, it would cause the House 
to reject consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 5, thus placing the 
Barshefsky nomination in jeopardy.
  So this is a grave matter, Madam President. It is in the very clear 
interest of the United States to put in place as soon as possible a 
strong and effective special trade representative. In other words, Ms. 
Barshefsky. She needs to be on the job. We have a lot of trade 
discussions and disputes that are ongoing. Charlene Barshefsky is an 
absolutely superb advocate and we need to get her confirmed. So for 
these reasons, I am supporting the nomination and the waiver bill and 
cannot support the proposed amendment. So I urge my colleagues to 
reject the Hollings amendmentand to vote for the waiver and for the 
nomination of Charlene Barshefsky.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Florida, a member of the Committee on Finance, who is one of those who 
voted unanimously to report this nomination to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Madam President, and I thank the Senator from 
New York.
  I urge the Senate to move expeditiously to confirm Ambassador

[[Page S1955]]

Charlene Barshefsky as U.S. Trade Representative. She is the right 
person at the right time for the very difficult task she will be 
undertaking.
  I also urge the immediate passage of Senate Joint Resolution 5, 
without amendment, to extend the waiver for the position which 
Ambassador Barshefsky currently holds as Deputy U.S. Trade 
Representative. This waiver as granted under Senate Joint Resolution 5 
applies only to Ambassador Barshefsky. It does not change the 
underlying law, nor does it create a precedent for future waivers. This 
waiver deserves to pass without amendment. The merits of the issue 
which are being raised by my friend and colleague from South Carolina 
deserve to be heard, but I would submit that this is not the forum for 
the resolution of those questions. There will be other more appropriate 
times which will not entail endangering the expeditious confirmation of 
Ambassador Barshefsky to her important post.
  As Senator Moynihan has just stated, when Ambassador Barshefsky's 
nomination was presented to the Finance Committee, her record was 
carefully examined. The result of that examination was a unanimous vote 
by the committee in favor of her confirmation. Ambassador Barshefsky 
was referred to at the confirmation hearing as one of the most 
qualified, seasoned trade negotiators ever to be offered for this 
position. As Deputy and Acting U.S. Trade Representative, she has been 
an outstanding advocate of the trade interests of the United States of 
America. She has proven herself to be a brilliant negotiator. The 
Finance Committee and, I hope soon, the Senate as a whole will 
recognize these qualities. Ambassador Barshefsky has demonstrated a 
consistent focus on opening global markets, opening those markets 
through bilateral and multilateral trade agreements that increase 
export opportunities for U.S. businesses and creates jobs for U.S. 
workers. She has played an instrumental role in solving trade disputes 
with Japan, China, and numerous other nations on behalf of the United 
States.

  Madam President, I was recently in Florida with a group of 
representatives of important agricultural interests who were looking 
forward to going to China with Ambassador Barshefsky to open markets 
for American agriculture in that tremendous nation of population. That 
is an example of the aggressive pursuit of opportunities for American 
industry and agriculture that has hallmarked Ambassador Barshefsky's 
performance in her current positions and will do likewise when she is 
confirmed as the U.S. Trade Representative.
  It is a pleasure to give this outstanding nominee my unqualified 
endorsement. I have no question that Ambassador Barshefsky will be an 
outstanding representative and leader at the U.S. Trade Representative 
office. I urge my colleagues to join in voting to confirm her 
nomination today. We need a timely decision. We have already paid a 
cost for the delay that has occurred to date. The U.S. trade position 
is weakened when it does not have a confirmed U.S. Trade Representative 
representing our interests. We need to transfer that weakness into the 
strength of steel that will come when Charlene Barshefsky represents 
the United States as our Ambassador, as the U.S. Trade Representative.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Delaware for yielding me some 
time.
  Madam President, today we must decide to vote in favor of a waiver to 
allow a very competent and worthy candidate to be the new U.S. Trade 
Representative or to vote to uphold current law. I have decided to 
uphold current law. It must be made clear that I do not doubt the 
competency and ability of Ambassador Barshefsky to faithfully serve as 
the next U.S. Trade Representative. She has done a tremendous job as 
the Deputy USTR and has proven herself to be a competent public 
servant.
  The law we are asked to waive is not some arcane law that has been on 
the books for decades which may have served us well in the past but is 
a law that was passed only 2 years ago. The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
1995 was a very important piece of legislation that opened the doors to 
the public to see who is attempting to influence our elected officials. 
Section 21 of the act specifically states that no person who has 
represented a foreign entity may be appointed as a U.S. Trade 
Representative or the Deputy U.S. Trade Representative.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record section 21 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act and from the United 
States Code section 2171(b).
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995

     SEC. 21. BAN ON TRADE REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTING OR ADVISING 
                   FOREIGN ENTITIES.

       (a) Representing After Service.--Section 207(f)(2) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``or Deputy United States Trade 
     Representative'' after ``is the United States Trade 
     Representative''; and
       (2) striking ``within 3 years'' and inserting ``at any 
     time''.
       (b) Limitation on Appointment as United States Trade 
     Representative and Deputy United States Trade 
     Representative.--Section 141(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2171(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) Limitation on appointments.--A person who has 
     directly represented, aided, or advised a foreign entity (as 
     defined by section 207(f)(3) of title 18, United States Code) 
     in any trade negotiation, or trade dispute, with the United 
     States may not be appointed as United States Trade 
     Representative or as a Deputy United States Trade 
     Representative.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to an individual appointed as United 
     States Trade Representative or as a Deputy United States 
     Trade Representative on or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) United States Trade Representative; Deputy United 
     States Trade Representatives.
       (1) The Office shall be headed by the United States Trade 
     Representative who shall be appointed by the President, by 
     and with the advice and consent of the Senate. As an exercise 
     of the rulemaking power of the Senate, any nomination of the 
     United States Trade Representative submitted to the Senate 
     for confirmation, and referred to a committee, shall be 
     referred to the Committee on Finance. The United States Trade 
     Representative shall hold office at the pleasure of the 
     President, shall be entitled to receive the same allowances 
     as a chief of mission, and shall have the rank of Ambassador 
     Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary.
       (2) There shall be in the Office three Deputy United States 
     Trade Representatives who shall be appointed by the 
     President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. 
     As an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate, any 
     nomination of a Deputy United States Trade Representative 
     submitted to the Senate for confirmation, and referred to a 
     committee, shall be referred to the Committee on Finance. 
     Each Deputy United States Trade Representative shall hold 
     office at the pleasure of the President and shall have the 
     rank of Ambassador.
       (3) Limitation of appointments.
       A person who has directly represented, aided, or advised a 
     foreign entity (as defined by section 207(f)(3) of Title 18) 
     in any trade negotiation, or trade dispute, with the United 
     States may not be appointed as United States Trade 
     Representative or as a Deputy United States Trade 
     Representative.

  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, while I regret that I have to vote 
against Ambassador Barshefsky's worthy nomination, I believe as 
lawmakers we must not only strive to enact the best laws but also to 
obey not only the letter of the law but also the spirit of the law. Why 
do we pass laws if the first time they become problematic, we decide to 
grant a waiver. In the last couple of months, I have heard too many 
politicians say that it was out of necessity that they bend the law or 
ignore the spirit of the law or assume that it may not be illegal, and 
then promise it will not happen again. My solution to this dilemma is 
to follow the law or repeal it.
  While in the other body, I voted for the Lobbying Disclosure Act and 
have consistently promised my constituents that I will work hard to 
enact congressional reform. In this vein, I cannot turn my back on them 
or on the law that I fought hard to enact. I understand why many will 
vote for this waiver because Ambassador Barshefsky would make a 
tremendous USTR, but I must regretfully vote no and only hope that this 
waiver granting procedure doesn't start a bad precedent for the future. 
In conclusion, I am voting

[[Page S1956]]

against the Hollings amendment and the waiver.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may use on 
the hour for the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, on January 30, 1997, the Committee on 
Finance unanimously reported without amendment Senate Joint Resolution 
5, the waiver resolution for Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky's 
appointment to serve as U.S. Trade Representative. As I said earlier, I 
strongly support Ambassador Barshefsky's nomination. Therefore, in 
order to expedite the appointment of this nominee, it is my considered 
opinion as chairman of the Finance Committee, that the waiver should 
remain clean and should not be amended.
  Now, Senator Hollings has introduced an amendment to the waiver. This 
amendment would require congressional approval of any trade agreement 
that ``in effect'' amends or repeals U.S. statutory law.
  While I am convinced that as a general matter the Senate should not 
add amendments to the waiver, I have a number of concerns specifically 
about Senator Hollings' amendment, which lead me to oppose the 
amendment most strongly and to urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  My primary concern is that passage of the Hollings amendment will 
seriously jeopardize Ambassador Barshefsky's nomination. I have a 
letter from Chairman Archer of the House Ways and Means Committee 
stating that the House would view the Hollings provision as a revenue 
measure that, under the origination clause of the Constitution, must 
originate in the House of Representatives. As such, Chairman Archer 
informs me that he will invoke the constitutional prerogative of the 
House to refuse to consider the waiver resolution for Ambassador 
Barshefsky if the Hollings amendment is added.
  I ask unanimous consent that Chairman Archer's letter be printed in 
the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ROTH. I want to emphasize one point to those that support the 
Barshefsky nomination. Regardless of whether one supports the Hollings 
amendment on the merits, the House will blue slip it. This means that 
not only will the House kill the Hollings amendment, but the Barshefsky 
waiver along with it.
  This fact alone is ample reason to vote against the Hollings 
amendment.
  In addition to this procedural concern, I also have substantive 
problems with the Hollings amendment. I admit this amendment may have 
some superficial appeal. Nonetheless, it is completely unnecessary 
because it is based on a false assumption, implying a problem that 
simply does not exist. The amendment gives the erroneous impression 
that the President is currently able to implement international trade 
agreements calling for changes in U.S. statutory law without the 
passage of implementing legislation by Congress. That is simply not 
true. If a trade agreement requires changes in U.S. statutory law, 
Congress must enact the legislation to implement those changes. 
Congress must pass that legislation in order for the agreement to have 
full force and effect with respect to the United States.
  A good example is the OECD Shipbuilding Subsidies Agreement, a trade 
agreement that was negotiated in 1994. Congress has been unable to pass 
legislation to implement the changes in U.S. law called for under that 
agreement. As a result, the agreement has no force and effect with 
respect to the United States. Absent congressional passage of 
implementing legislation, there is nothing the President can do to 
implement the agreement on his own.
  Now, what if Congress and the President have a legitimate 
disagreement about whether a particular trade agreement calls for a 
change in U.S. law? My understanding is that this issue is the basis of 
Senator Hollings' concern--that the President can act to supersede laws 
passed by Congress.
  First of all, this is not a situation where trade agreements are 
somehow deemed to be treaties, with the full force of law, but which, 
unlike a treaty, the President is able to implement without 
Congressional approval. Trade agreements are executive agreements. And 
the simple fact is that if there is an inconsistency between an 
executive agreement and a statute, the statute prevails. In other 
words, a law passed by Congress remains on the books in full force and 
effect and cannot somehow be trumped by an executive agreement or any 
other action by the President.
  In my opinion, the language in the Hollings amendment requiring that 
Congress approve any trade agreement that ``would in effect amend or 
repeal'' U.S. statutory law also suffers from several other defects.
  It is vague, subjective, leaves undefined what ``in effect'' means, 
and does not specify who determines whether a law is effectively 
changed by a trade agreement.
  Trade agreements cannot effectively change or repeal U.S. law. An 
agreement may call for actual changes in U.S. statutory law, in which 
case, as I have already explained, Congress must pass implementing 
legislation in order for it to have force and effect with respect to 
the United States. Or an agreement does not call for such changes, in 
which case it can be implemented without congressional action. Indeed, 
the language in the Hollings provision is so vague and ill-defined, 
that it could require congressional approval of any and every trade 
agreement the President negotiates, even those not calling for actual 
changes in U.S. statutory law. This could immobilize our ability to 
negotiate trade agreements, even on relatively minor issues, as 
Congress would be required to approve tens, if not hundreds of such 
agreements.
  All of these agreements would also be fully amendable. The result 
would be to shackle our capacity to conduct any trade policy.
  Because the language in the amendment is so vague, I also fear that 
it could call into question the legal status of previous agreements 
that have not been fully implemented, including the recently concluded 
Information Technologies Agreement. This landmark agreement was 
completed pursuant to authority provided to the President by Congress 
under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, and currently needs no further 
congressional action in order to be fully implemented. However, that 
situation could change under the Hollings amendment, which would 
seriously jeopardize this historic agreement to provide a market 
opening for U.S. companies worth $500 billion a year.
  The amendment appears to be driven, in part, by Senator Hollings' 
concerns about the telecommunications agreement recently negotiated at 
the World Trade Organization.
  My understanding is that Senator Hollings believes the commitments 
the administration makes in the telecommunications agreement will 
change current U.S. telecommunications law without Congress having the 
opportunity to pass implementing legislation.
  I would like to point out that others disagree with Senator Hollings' 
view that this agreement will change current U.S. law. Senator McCain, 
chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation, Senator Burns, along with Congressman Oxley, vice-chair 
of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee, wrote a letter to the 
President expressing their view that no implementing legislation is 
necessary.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter also be printed in the 
Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. ROTH. In conclusion, Madam President, we must keep focused on the 
task at hand--fulfilling the Senate's constitutional prerogative with 
respect to Ambassador Barshefsky's nomination. We should not be bogging 
this nomination down with extraneous and controversial matters, such as 
the Hollings amendment. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting to table the Hollings amendment, which will be made at the 
appropriate time.
  Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

[[Page S1957]]

                               Exhibit 1

                                      Committee on Ways and Means,


                                U.S. House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, February 13, 1997.
     Hon. William V. Roth, Jr., Chairman,
     Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Roth: I am writing in reference to 
     legislation that would waive the application of section 
     141(b)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Lobby 
     Disclosure Act, with respect to the nomination of Ambassador 
     Charlene Barshefsky as United States Trade Representative. As 
     you know, I fully support Ambassador Barshefsky's nomination 
     and urge the Senate to pass quickly legislation permitting 
     her confirmation so that the House may then consider it 
     promptly.
       At the same time, I am concerned that the legislation 
     passed by the Senate may include provisions that contravene 
     the origination clause of the U.S. Constitution, which 
     provides that revenue measures must originate in the House. 
     Specifically, I understand that the Senate may be asked to 
     consider particular provisions, such as one suggested by 
     Senator Hollings, which would change the manner in which 
     Congress considers trade agreements and legislation having a 
     direct effect on customs revenues. Although I strongly 
     support Ambassador Barshefsky's nomination, I would have no 
     choice but to insist on the House's Constitutional 
     prerogatives and to seek the return to the Senate of any 
     legislation including such a provision.
       I look forward to working with you on this matter.
           With best personal regards,
                                                      Bill Archer,
                                                         Chairman.

                               Exhibit 2


                                Congress of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, February 11, 1997.
     The President,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We write regarding inaccuracies in 
     correspondence you reportedly have received from a few of our 
     colleagues regarding the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
     telecommunications talks and restrictions on international 
     investment.
       As you are aware, officials of the United States Trade 
     Representative (USTR) are hard at work negotiating a market-
     opening agreement in the WTO Group on Basic 
     Telecommunications (GBT). Questions have been raised 
     concerning the Administration's authority to negotiate an 
     agreement lowering barriers to international investment.
       It has been stated that USTR sought amendments to the 
     Telecommunications Act of 1996 to clarify legal limits on 
     foreign investment in U.S. telecommunications firms. This is 
     incorrect. As the authors of the Senate and House foreign 
     ownership provisions, we wish to state for the record that we 
     were acting on our own initiative and that no Administration 
     official requested that we legislate in this area. Any 
     discussions we had with the Administration on these issues 
     came at our request.
       We firmly believe that the Administration possesses the 
     authority to negotiate an agreement without implementing 
     legislation. Indeed, the correct legal interpretation of the 
     relevant statute is that private foreign firms are free to 
     invest in American firms without restriction unless ``the 
     [Federal Communications] Commission finds that the public 
     interest will be served by the refusal or revocation'' of a 
     telecommunications license. To allege that implementing 
     legislation is necessary is to misinterpret the law. Indeed, 
     it is the very prevalence of such misreadings that caused us 
     to attempt to reform the ownership rules.
       We wish to state our support for USTR's negotiators. We 
     appreciate their work to promote free trade in goods and 
     services. We believe that a freer flow of capital is a 
     logical extension of this policy. Artificial limits on 
     international investment only harm U.S. firms by denying them 
     access to foreign capital and foreign markets.
       Thank you for your consideration on these thoughts.
           Yours truly,
     John McCain,
       Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
     Transportation.
     Michael G. Oxley,
       Vice Chairman, House Subcommittee on Telecommunications, 
     Trade and Consumer Protection.
     Conrad Burns,
       Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Communications.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, I rise simply to endorse, with fullest 
conviction, the statement of the chairman in this matter, and to 
emphasize, if I may be allowed, that executive agreements can never 
override statute. If they do, they are null and void, and the courts 
will so hold.
  For us even to suggest that that might be possible would be to 
introduce into our governmental administrative arrangements matters of 
ambiguity and doubt and uncertainty that would have the capacity to 
incapacitate what has turned out to be an extraordinarily successful 
procedure in world trade.
  It has taken us 60 years--63 from the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act 
of 1934--to reach a point where we are the world's largest trading 
nation and leading the way in these matters in the world and hugely 
respected for that and known to have the capacity to negotiate when the 
Congress gives that authority to the President. The subsequent 
negotiations are executive agreements. If any part of them should, by 
inadvertence or intention, be contrary to present statutory law, they 
are null and void. That proposition must never be put into question as 
I fear this matter before us might do.
  I yield the floor and thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
  Madam President, it is difficult to really determine the position of 
our distinguished leadership on the Finance Committee. In one breath, 
they say it is unnecessary and, in the next breath, they say it is 
going to really ruin $500 billion in trade. Then they come back and say 
the statutory law pertains and talk at length about how they have 
worked over the years with Ambassador-designate Barshefsky.
  In fact, the point was just made by my distinguished colleague from 
New York, since 1934, they have been working. I have been on the 
Communications Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee for 30 years, and 
I watched it develop over that 30-year period. When we had a majority 
on our side of the aisle, I introduced the formative legislation to 
revise that 1934 Communications Act with the initiative that would 
allow the trade representative to negotiate an international 
telecommunications agreement.
  I am totally familiar, during the past 3 to 4 years, with what they 
are talking about because this is a Senator who has been working with 
the White House and with the trade representative, be it Ambassador 
Kantor or now Ambassador Barshefsky.
  It was Ambassador Kantor who said the law needed amending. I already 
had that letter printed in the Record. Now they say there is no law to 
be amended. Heavens above. In fact, the distinguished Senator from 
Iowa, Senator Grassley, comes in here and says it is totally 
unnecessary. He said, ``Actually, my provision, which is 
constitutional''--that is all it does, is cite a fundamental of the 
Constitution that you have in order to amend or repeal a statute. It is 
not a regulation, as the Senator from Rhode Island tried to read into 
it.
  It is very simple, very clear, not vague, not vague at all. It is the 
constitutional provision of three readings in the House, three readings 
in the Senate, and signed by the President.
  When they say it is unnecessary, just look at the letters just 
inserted in the Record. I refer to the letter of the Senator from 
Arizona, Senator McCain, the Senator from Montana, Senator Burns, and 
Congressman Oxley on the House side, and they say:

       We firmly believe that the administration possesses the 
     authority to negotiate an agreement without implementing 
     legislation.

  Now, heavens above, we know Ambassador Kantor thought so and asked 
that it be changed. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record section 310(a) and section 310(b) of the Communications Act of 
1934.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     SEC. 310. [47 U.S.C. 310] LIMITATION ON HOLDING AND TRANSFER 
                   OF LICENSES.

       (a) The station license required under this Act shall not 
     be granted to or held by any foreign government or the 
     representative thereof.
       (b) No broadcast or common carrier or aeronautical en route 
     or aeronautical fixed radio station license shall be granted 
     to or held by--
       (1) any alien or the representative of any alien;
       (2) any corporation organized under the laws of any foreign 
     government;
       (3) any corporation of which more than one-fifth of the 
     capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens or their 
     representatives or by a foreign government or representative 
     thereof or by any corporation organized under the laws of a 
     foreign country;

[[Page S1958]]

       (4) any corporation directly or indirectly controlled by 
     any other corporation of which more than one-fourth of the 
     capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens, their 
     representatives, or by a foreign government or representative 
     thereof, or by any corporation organized under the laws of a 
     foreign country, if the Commission finds that the public 
     interest will be served by the refusal or revocation of such 
     license.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, let's just read 310(a):

       The station license required under this Act shall not be 
     granted to or held by any foreign government or the 
     representative thereof. . .

  And in section (b) starting off:

       No broadcast or common carrier license--

  And I jump down to four:

       . . . any corporation directly or indirectly controlled by 
     any other corporation of which more than one-fourth of the 
     capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens, their 
     representatives, or by a foreign government, or 
     representative thereof, or by any corporation organized under 
     the laws of a foreign country.

  It is just as plain as can be and very simple, totally disregarded by 
Ms. Barshefsky. We kept telling her, we wrote the White House letters, 
we admonished, ``Wait a minute, your predecessor came before us, 
testified, asked that it be changed,'' and then we see in the letter by 
these three gentlemen the phrase ``as authors of the Senate and House 
foreign ownership provisions.'' False. Mr. Oxley, yes, at the request 
of the administration. On the House side, it put in there the 100-
percent ownership which could be negotiated away. That was never agreed 
to.
  I authored the reciprocity provision with the snapback condition on 
the Senate side. So I have to correct the distinguished chairman of my 
committee and the chairman of our subcommittee, Senators McCain and 
Burns. As the authors, this is very misleading to the particular body 
here and the other Senators reading that. And then reading further, 
``No administration official requested that we legislate in this 
area.'' These gentlemen were not intimate to the negotiations or 
members of the conference committee that actually did the work.
  Let me refer to, on August 4, 1995, the Congressional Record. Page 
8451 is the page. I am quoting Mr. Bliley, the chairman of the Commerce 
Committee on the House side and the chief negotiator for the House 
membership. I quote:

       Additionally, we have addressed the issue of foreign 
     ownership or equity interest in domestic telecommunications 
     companies. The new language reflects the hard work of Messrs. 
     Dingell and Oxley, who sponsored the proposal in committee, 
     the administration and myself. I must observe, Mr. Chairman, 
     that the foreign ownership issue is the only matter on which 
     the administration offered specific language to the Commerce 
     Committee. And I believe this administration's concerns have 
     been largely resolved.

  Madam President, there it is. We made the official Record. The 
administration, after they did not get their desired result on the 
Senate side, went to work on the House side. And they did request, 
where they say no request after requesting us. We talked to them back 
in 1995 several times. We knew exactly what they had in mind. We tried 
to comply. But we did not change the law.
  Now we have leading Senators, the chairman of our full committee and 
the chairman of our subcommittee, saying that the administration 
possesses the authority to give away 100 percent in violation of 
sections 310(a) and 310(b). That is why it is necessary. To be told now 
on the Senate floor that the Constitution, that we all take an oath to 
support and protect--it has a chilling effect that is out of the whole 
cloth. To come now and say it is vague is out of the whole cloth. You 
cannot make language any more categorical. I did not say 
``regulation,'' like they tried to read and make for confusion. It is 
just as plain as can be.
  I have talked with many of the Members, and asked if they wanted it 
changed in any way. And they said they did not see how you could vote 
against it. Well, the way they vote against it is to come up and now 
argue the capabilities of what I was going to hear again.
  Heavens above. When we had Ambassador Carla Hills, who is now gone in 
representation I guess, we had to put the provision in law. I am glad 
to see the Senator from Colorado on the floor saying that he did not 
agree with that waiver. That was the Dole waiver that we are talking 
about. The Hollings waiver, which is on the appropriations bill, that 
is in relation to the special trade or U.S. Trade Representative, that 
you shall not engage in the representing of foreign interests in trade 
for a 5-year period, which applies of course to our distinguished 
friend, Mickey Kantor.
  But when we had Carla hills, every one of these negotiators--the 
Finance Committee leadership comes with again the ``Dragon Lady, Dragon 
Lady,'' ``Oh, man, tough, tough, tough.'' He did say, the Senator from 
New York, that Ms. Barshefsky was formidable to the point of being 
dazzling. Well, I will agree. She has been dazzling. And this Senator 
has not. That is exactly the point I am trying to make.
  I met with Ms. Barshefsky, and she did have a dazzling approach of 
``I want to work with you. I want to work with you. I want to work with 
you.'' As I have stated earlier, ``Madam, I want you to work with the 
law, not me. Just adhere to this law.''
  We have had this in dispute. We have had this in discussion. We have 
had this in negotiation with Members and Senate leadership in the 
Congress, leadership in the White House. And the law is the law. It has 
not been changed.
  And they go there and can justify further that the distinguished 
negotiator is so tough she just walked away on the telecommunications 
negotiations.
  Well, that is not what the Wall Street Journal stated on May 20 of 
last year. And I quote:

       U.S. negotiators did pull back from a telecom deal at the 
     11th hour, but not because Clintonites were queasy about 
     inking another market opening pact in an election year. 
     Administration trade officials would have been delighted to 
     trumpet a telecom deal to counter mounting U.S. skepticism 
     about the WTO's accomplishments, but they walked away from 
     the table after industry executives and leading Republican 
     and Democratic Senators balked.

  Madam President, that is exactly what happened on the telecom deal.
  And they mention the capacity deal out there in Singapore. One would 
say how she worked so hard. Well, she gave away the store, without 
talking to the capacity manufacturers, specifically she gave away 4,000 
jobs in the Carolina's.
  The Japanese make these capacities, but when she did away with the 
9.6-percent tariff, you have the weakness of the yen combined with the 
tariff phased out. The existence of Kaymet in Greenville, SC, I 
remember that. And I asked the officials there, and they were never 
contacted. Just at the last minute they agreed to it. Fine, you can get 
when you give away the store in capacities, when you give away your 
broadcast entities.
  Under this agreement--I want to make it crystal clear--Nippon 
Telephone & Telegraph can come in here and buy CBS, ABC, NBC.
  I talked earlier with one Senator. He was talking about the 
opportunity that Castro seems to do business with the Canadians. He 
could get the Canadians to come in and buy a station down in Miami and 
really turn the particular Senator from Florida into an upset 
condition. He is wanting to get into China and we have to move in a 
hurry. I have a good eye here today, but the Senator from Florida wants 
to be able to have any foreign entity come in, Castro or otherwise, 
Qadhafi, the whole kit and caboodle of the rascals around the world or 
any foreign country. They delight now in coming in and buying these 
that we have been trying to protect.
  That is why the Members would not agree. They held fast. I am 
speaking on behalf of the majority of the U.S. Senate, 95 votes, if you 
please. We approved that. And that was in discussion up until the last 
minute, and they would not yield. So there it is. They do so well on 
these other agreements.
  Let us see, Madam President, how they have done on this particular 
one.
  If you believe the U.S. Trade Representative, world commerce would 
come to an end unless we continue to negotiate these one-sided 
agreements. But the truth of the matter here is Ambassador Barshefsky, 
in announcing the successful conclusion of this telecom negotiations 
stated--and I quote:

       This agreement represents a change of profound importance.


[[Page S1959]]


  U.S. companies now have access to nearly 100 percent of 20 
telecommunications markets. Now, unfortunately, Madam President, 
nothing has changed. Nothing has changed at all. Once again, the trade 
representative has obtained inadequate concessions.
  A review of those agreements--not these laudatory press releases--
reveals that the market openings are limited, at best, or nonexistent, 
at worst.
  While the United States has agreed to permit complete foreign 
ownership of our broadcast properties and U.S. telecommunications 
providers, our major trading partners have severely restricted our 
access to their most well-established and entrenched companies. USTR 
claims that Australia, Italy, Japan, France, New Zealand, and Spain 
have all agreed to permit ownership or control of all 
telecommunications providers. Yet, you take a closer look and you see 
there are severe foreign ownership restrictions still remaining in 
place for Vodafone and Telstra in Australia, with Stet in Italy, KDD 
and Nippon Telephone and Telegraph in Japan--you cannot own any of it--
Telecom NZ in New Zealand, Telefonica in Spain, France Telecom in 
France that prevents U.S. providers from owning the controlling 
interests or no interest at all in these telecommunication giants.
  U.S. companies have access so long as they are not interested in 
getting into the best and most sophisticated and competitive companies. 
They could come in and buy AT&T, not just the companies like GTE, or 
whatever. They can come in and buy the broadcast properties, which is 
most disturbing to this particular Senator.
  Now, going further, Madam President, Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, 
India, Hong Kong, the Philippines, and Canada permit no foreign control 
for facility-based providers. The fastest growing and most important 
markets in the world are closed tight as a drum. Take the Korean 
market. Foreign individual shareholding in Korea Telegram is limited to 
3 percent--3 percent. We gave away our most powerful negotiating tools, 
just for 3 percent. When you give away 100 percent, there is no more 
negotiations, you are through. Ask Senator Dole--been there, done that. 
It is over with. You got no more negotiating authority or any 
negotiating tools.
  Or take Canada. The Canadians provide for no foreign control of 
facility-based providers--none. Yet, under this agreement, Bell Canada 
can purchase any United States-based provider it wishes. What a 
wonderful agreement. What a wonderful agreement they are all bragging 
about.
  The other developing markets also include severe restrictions. Brazil 
has liberalized ownership restrictions only with regard to seller, 
satellite, and nonpublic services. Mexico has retained ownership 
restrictions on all types of services except seller. Poland retains 
foreign ownership restrictions for wireless, international, and long 
distance. So the total liberalization of the U.S. marketplace, what 
incentive was that liberalization? What incentive do these countries 
have to liberalize their particular markets any further? None whatever. 
None whatever. We have given away the store.
  I told you in the very beginning about clothing, and they keep 
exporting the jobs faster than we can possibly create them --300,000. 
We were going to create 200,000, but we have exported already, lost 
300,000 jobs in textiles alone. And we can go further.
  The FCC recently issued an international notice of proposed 
rulemaking. This particular rulemaking would force foreign providers to 
lower their prices. However, many of the enforcement mechanisms 
contained in this particular rulemaking are violations of the MFN, most 
favored nation provisions. Different benchmarks based on the gross 
domestic product, denying access to providers from countries who refuse 
to meet the benchmarks, and granting waivers to those who restructure 
more quickly are all integral parts of these benchmark policies, but 
illegal and likely to be challenged, no doubt in the WTO.
  So the agreement on telecom can have perverse effects on the price 
system they are trying to tell us about now, telling the competing 
countries we have a question there with respect to ownership and MCI, 
and with respect to Sprint, so they stay quiet. You do not find them 
all coming in here. And they are being told, ``Hush now, at the FCC we 
will help you with the access places in these international long-
distance calls, and we are going to get something done.'' They will 
never get it done. Watch this MFN provision and watch the World Trade 
Organization.

  These are the kind of promises that continually come up when we have 
one of these agreements. Just remember, Madam President, the promises 
they made with NAFTA. You have to realize, we must learn from 
experience. As George Santayana said, those who disregard the lessons 
of history are doomed to repeat them. We should see the history of this 
wonderful U.S. trade agreement that they had with NAFTA. At that 
particular time, they said if we fail to pass NAFTA, one, Mexico would 
face economic collapse; two, immigration would increase; three, drugs 
would flow freely; four, 200,000 new jobs would not be created; five, 
the U.S. exports surplus would disappear; six, Asian investors would 
move into Mexico to take advantage of the growing markets. That is why 
they said we had to approve NAFTA.
  We have approved NAFTA, and this is exactly what happened--exactly 
what happened. Mexico is in economic collapse; immigration has 
increased; the drugs flow freely down there; 200,000 jobs have not been 
created; the U.S. exports surplus has disappeared. We had a $5 billion 
surplus. It is now a $16 billion deficit. The Asian investors who were 
going to be prevented from moving in are moving in like gangbusters and 
dumping back here under NAFTA free trade arrangements into the United 
States.
  I could go on further. I see some here who want to talk, but I will 
complete this thought now, because we had the classic case for free 
trade with an emerging country, and the Secretary of Treasury, in 
particular, the Deputy Secretary of Treasury, Lawrence Summers, said, 
this is really it, we really are getting free trade now. And everybody 
is going to get, I think they said, about $1700 for everybody, and we 
were going to have everybody better off.
  Well, Lawrence Summers, he is the one that sold this thing to the 
House memberships and the Senators. Since that time, he has now 
appeared on Thursday, January 16, in the Congress, and I quote from the 
Wall Street Journal of that particular date. ``By many measures, most 
Mexicans are worse off than they were before the financial crisis,'' 
Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers conceded.
  The Members do not have a sense of history, understanding, or 
appreciation. What happened is that a million Mexicans have lost their 
jobs since NAFTA has passed. Wages have fallen by a third. Mexico's 
external debt reached $150 billion, higher than that during the debt 
crisis back in 1982. The bold visionary man of the year, Carlos 
Salinas--that is right, in December, after we voted in November, they 
made him the man of the year. Now he is living in exile in Ireland and 
you cannot catch him. He is the man of the year.
  This is the kind of nonsense that we have to put up with. If we want 
to go through the same act, same scene, dragon lady, tough, and 
everything else, it makes a sorry agreement, sells out the store. And 
we call that progress, and we have to create jobs, and education, 
education, education is the solution. Well, Madam President, like I 
say, if they read one thing, they ought to read the book, ``One World, 
Ready Or Not'' by Bill Crider. They will get an education on where we 
are, because the author spent 2 years going around the world, as well 
as in the United States, talking to the various executives and quoting 
them at that particular time. You can't understand some of the various 
provisions.

  I think, since I have the opportunity to present them, we ought to 
understand, in country after country, the precious rules of 
international trade. In India, for example, when General Motors wanted 
to sell its European-made Opal, the price of admission was a radiator 
cap factory. So GM moved the factory from Britain. In Korea, to sell 
fast trains, the French agreed to subcontract the assembly to the 
Koreans. In China, AT&T agreed to manufacture advanced switching 
equipment as a quid pro quo for wiring Chinese cities. In Australia, if 
your sales are above a certain threshold, you must negotiate with the 
Government on an agreement locating research and development in 
Australia. For production,

[[Page S1960]]

you must export 50 percent of what you import, and it must have 70 
percent local content. At least 33 electronics companies from Japan, 
Europe, and the United States have agreed to do that.
  According to an official from Motorola, ``If you don't cooperate with 
the Australians, they have the statutory authority to exclude you from 
bidders' lists and deny regulatory permits for products.''
  Well, Madam President, it's not just out there in the Pacific rim, 
where the control--Friedrich List kind of control --trade that works, 
that builds them up. Right this minute, one-half of the world's savings 
is in the country of Japan. While they are talking about the yen and 
the devaluation of it and while they are talking about the banking 
difficulties, watch what Edmund Finkleton said in ``Blind Side.'' Come 
the year 2000, while they are a bigger manufacturing country, with 120 
million, compared to our 260 million and the vast natural resources 
that we have in the United States, they already outproduce us. They 
will have a larger economy and gross domestic product--that little 
country of Japan. Why? They control it. As Friedrich List says, the 
wealth and strength of a nation, if you please, is measured not by what 
they consume, but what they produce. Akio Marita went on further--I was 
at a forum with him about 16 years ago up in Chicago. We were talking 
about the Third World emerging nations, and he commented: ``The 
emerging country has to develop a manufacturing capacity in order to 
become a nation state.'' After we talked a few minutes, he pointed to 
me and said, ``Senator, that world power that loses its manufacturing 
capacity will cease to be a world power.''
  We have gone, in a 10-year period, from 26 percent of our work force 
in manufacturing down now to 13 percent. We are back to Henry Ford. 
Henry Ford said that he wanted his workers to be able to purchase the 
article they were producing. Madam President, today, middle-America 
workers, not having those manufacturing jobs, can't afford the car. 
They can't purchase it. We are losing our middle class, all along, if 
you please, competing with ourselves.
  Over 50 percent of what we are importing, if you please, is U.S. 
multinationally generated. The U.S. multinationals are the fifth column 
in this trade war that we are in. They are in behind the lines gutting 
us here in the Congress, working through the special trade 
representative, trying to take away the authority under the 
Constitution to make laws and otherwise regulate foreign commerce. That 
is the authority of the Congress, and that is the reason we have that 
particular amendment. But we always talk, and I listened to the 
distinguished President when he talked about trade. He only mentioned 
exports.
  I want to challenge anybody to go to a CPA when they do their tax 
return next month and say, ``Let's just talk about what we got in, not 
what we spent, just one side of the ledger.'' If you had a CPA that 
made up your return that way, you would fire him. But that is 
constantly, constantly, constantly the way we look at the returns with 
respect to international trade.
  What really happens is, yes, while we in the United States are the 
most productive industrial workers, whereas we have improved 
productivity, and whereas we are, for example, in my State, an 
exporting State--I was just down at a Presidential Exporting Council 
meeting in Greenville, SC, and we are proud of it--the imports far and 
away outdistance the exports.
  In the last 15 years, before we got to last year, there has been an 
average of over $100 billion a year deficit, imports, in the balance of 
trade. That means we have bought from the foreigners $1.5 trillion more 
than we have sold to them. But how do you get that through to the 
Finance Committee where they just casually go on and on talking about 
dragon ladies and what a wonderful agreement we have? What, Madam 
President, is the merchandise deficit--I say ``deficit''; I repeat 
``deficit''--in the balance of trade last year? The merchandise deficit 
in merchandise trade was $187 billion.
  (Mr. BROWNBACK assumed the chair.)
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Now, we made some money off of loans, insurance, and 
services. So the overall deficit was quoted to be $114 billion. But I 
am looking at that industrial backbone. I am looking at that economic 
strength. I am looking at that world power trying to continue being a 
world power. I am realizing more and more every day that the 7th Fleet 
and the atom bomb don't count anymore. They just don't regard it. You 
are not going to use a nuclear attack; we all know that. I was bemused 
when they moved the fleet into the Taiwan Strait, because, in 1966, I 
was on an aircraft carrier, the Kitty Hawk, up in the Gulf of Tonkin, 
and we could not stop 20 million North Vietnamese. They didn't have 
planes and choppers and all this equipment that we had. But we have 
already tried that aircraft carrier. I wondered how an aircraft carrier 
or two in the Taiwan Strait was going to stop 1.2 billion Chinese when 
it could not stop a mere 20 million Vietnamese. Come on. Money talks. 
The economic strength, and in the world trade councils and otherwise in 
this global trade war that we are in--we are unilaterally disarming. We 
are giving away capacity. That capacity agreement in Singapore was 
where they manufacture them in Japan but Japan very cleverly got the 
Europeans to bring the pressure on us. And we walked away and said it 
was a good agreement. And I have lost 4,000 jobs in my State. I am 
losing thousands of jobs with NAFTA. I am looking around. Now I am 
seeing in telecommunications--what effect is this going to have? I 
guess in order to keep the Senator from South Carolina quiet they will 
buy the TV stations and run them because under the agreement they can. 
There is no question about it. They can own these broadcast properties.

  Down to the basic fundamental involved, just a couple of weeks ago we 
had Washington's Farewell Address here. The very Founding Father talked 
about the fundamental of the Hollings amendment. I can almost quote 
word for word. He said, If, in the opinion of the people, the 
modification or distribution of the powers under the Constitution be in 
any particular wrong, then let it be changed in the way that the 
Constitution designates, for while usurpation in the one instance may 
be the instrument of good it is the customary weapon by which free 
governments are destroyed.
  That is the line of this particular amendment. We are giving it away. 
We proceed by a fifth column. We are talking about jobs but we are 
exporting them faster. We are importing even faster the finished goods. 
We are weakening the democracy. The middle class is disappearing. And 
they are all hollering ``Whoopee. The economy is good, and let's give 
some millions so that politicians of one group can investigate 
politicians of another group about politics.'' That is the most asinine 
thing that you have ever seen. But that is where they give all the 
time. I can see some impatience. They don't want to listen about 
international trade, and the trade war. No. They don't want to listen 
about that. But they want to talk about independent prosecutors and 
investigators. I would give millions to the Federal Election Campaign 
Commission. They are bipartisan. Let them investigate, no holds barred. 
I would give even more millions to the Department of Justice. Let them 
investigate, no holds barred, for any violation of the law.
  But mind you me. It seems like we have learned enough here from that 
Whitewater thing. We went through an exercise. We had 44 hearings, 
millions of dollars wasted, and time and everything, all hoping to get 
on TV and investigate each other. Now they want to start up this 
session and talk about bipartisanship, and not talking about what is 
eroding the democracy itself in this country. I say that because when I 
talk about the middle class, Chesterton wrote that the strength of this 
little democracy here in America was that we had developed a strong 
middle class.
  We are headed, if you please, the way of England. That is what they 
told the Brits after World War II. ``Don't worry. Instead of a nation 
of brawn, you will be a nation of brains. Instead of producing 
products, you will provide services; a service economy. Instead of 
creating wealth, you will handle it and be a financial center.'' And 
England has gone to hell in an economic hand basket. You have the haves 
and the have-nots, London is no more than an amusement park. You go 
there, and the Parliament is talking the same kind of

[[Page S1961]]

extraneous nonsense that we are engaged in, and investigating each 
other and not getting on with the serious matters of truth in 
budgeting. Let's have it. I am going to talk to a group here in just a 
minute, and I hope we can get to them so that we can bring the record 
out about truth in budgeting.
  And truth in trade negotiations agreements and trade--an agreement 
has been made, not a treaty. They insist that you don't have to come 
back to the Congress itself when they amend the law, and they are in 
100-percent agreement of foreign ownership. There is no question about 
that. They just say it is not necessary while other Members say it is 
necessary. I thought that we ought to clarify once and for all our 
duties here, and have a clarion call, or a wake-up call, on this most 
important issue.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will not be able to use that time 
because I have to go to another meeting. I appreciate the time and the 
courtesy of the Senator from Delaware, Senator Roth. But I would like 
to use 20 minutes because my friend from South Carolina covered a broad 
variety of issues, some of which I assure my colleague from South 
Carolina we will be addressing in hearings in the Commerce Committee--
the results of NAFTA, the results of free trade; perhaps some of the 
reasons why unemployment is at its lowest in America. The last quarter 
it was just downgraded to 3.9 percent GNP growth--the reason Americans 
finally in the lower middle-incomes are seeing increases; why this 
economy is the envy of the world; why it is that free trade has played 
such an important role.
  I had the pleasure--the distinct pleasure, I say to my friend from 
South Carolina--of spending some time in his State. There happened to 
be an important Republican primary in the last election. It was a great 
privilege and honor for me to get to know many of the wonderful 
citizens of his State. In case he has not noticed, they are doing very 
well. They are working at the BMW plant. They are working at the Sony 
plant. They are working at all these corporations and companies that 
have come to this terrible country of ours which is so protectionist 
and so outrageous. They are coming to our country, I am sure the 
Senator from South Carolina has noticed. And in the view of the South 
Carolinians that I spoke to, they think it is a lot better with the 
high-paying jobs at the BMW plant than at a textile mill; than standing 
in front of a loom in that kind of back-breaking, sweat labor that 
existed; where they are getting higher salaries and more benefits, 
thanks to the companies and corporations that have come into South 
Carolina; thanks to the enlightened leadership of the State of South 
Carolina, including the Senator from South Carolina who has attracted 
them.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would love to yield. But I just listened for the last 
45 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina, and, as much was I would 
like to hear from him again, I have to go to another meeting. I 
apologize. But if the Senator from South Carolina would promise me to 
be brief, I will be glad to yield to him for a brief answer.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. We are very proud that the Senator from Arizona has 
been to the showcase area up there in the Piedmont. But down there we 
have that situation where there is 11 percent unemployment in Richland, 
14 percent in Williamsburg and Barnwell, and, 12 percent over in 
Marlborough. So we have the haves and have-nots.
  I am very proud. I made the first trip to Europe where we have 100 
German plants, 50 Japanese plants now. And I am very proud that I 
instituted the technical training which makes us most productive at 
BMW. We thank the Senator, very much, for his visit. I would be glad to 
show him the other parts that I am also worried about.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from South 
Carolina that I did travel the entire State. His point is well made 
that it is not a totally even economy. He can come to my State and find 
out that in the southern part of my State it is as high as 35 to 40 
percent unemployment in the city of Nogales. But the overall economy is 
good. It is better, in my view, because of free trade, and again the 
enlightened policies of seeking and obtaining foreign corporations who 
come in and give high-paying jobs.
  I also, by the way, have had the chance to go to Hilton Head and 
Charleston and some of the other areas that are doing extremely well. 
But there is no sense in going through a road map of the depiction of 
the State of South Carolina which is a lovely and beautiful State, as 
certainly the Senator from South Carolina well knows.
  But I want to repeat to him again. We will have hearings in the 
Commerce Committee about the state of the American economy, about the 
impact of trade, where protection works and where it doesn't, and what 
the effects of NAFTA has been and whether we should expand NAFTA, which 
would be a proposal of the administration.
  I will say with all respect to the Senator from South Carolina, I 
believe the members of the committee and the American people will be 
enlightened by our debate because I know that the Senator from South 
Carolina is well informed and holds very strong views, as do I and 
other members of the committee. I note the Senator from West Virginia 
is here, who also has his problems within his State.
  So I hope the hearings we will have will not only have a legislative 
result but also will perform the much-needed function of enlightening 
the American people and our colleagues as to what free trade is all 
about, its effects, and, by the way, the effects of protectionism and 
restraint of trade.
  I do oppose the amendment offered by Senator Hollings, and I will at 
the appropriate time offer a motion to table. This amendment, in my 
view, jeopardizes Ms. Barshefsky's nomination. The chairman of the 
House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Archer, has conveyed to Finance 
Committee Chairman Roth that the House will reject the amendment and 
thereby kill the nomination of a very qualified individual.
  I share with my colleagues the position of the President of the 
United States. Mr. President, I think it is very important. I ask 
unanimous consent that the statement of administration policy be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Statement of Administration Policy


s.j. res. 5--waiver for ustr appointment (roth (r) de, and moynihan (d) 
                                  ny)

       The Administration strongly supports the enactment of S.J. 
     Res. 5, which would authorize the appointment of Charlene 
     Barshefsky as the United States Trade Representative.
       When the Senate Considers S.J. Res. 5, Senator Hollings' 
     amendment relating to the President's long-standing authority 
     to carry out trade agreements may also be considered. The 
     Administration strongly opposes the Hollings amendment, which 
     would effect a major change in trade agreement implementing 
     procedures with immediate and harmful effects on U.S. 
     consumers, firms, and workers. The Hollings amendment would 
     hinder, delay, and, in some cases, jeopardize agreements that 
     greatly serve the Nation's interests.


               harmful effects of the hollings amendment

       The Hollings amendment could require congressional approval 
     of every trade agreement that might be construed to require a 
     change in U.S. law. The amendment is unnecessary to assure 
     that the Executive Branch is conforming to congressional 
     mandates on trade negotiations, is overly burdensome for both 
     the President and the Congress, and could endanger the 
     benefits to the United States of some trade agreements.
       The overwhelming majority of trade agreements that the 
     President concludes can be--and traditionally have been--
     implemented under existing statutes. If the authority to 
     implement an agreement does no already exist, then the 
     President must seek that authority. If the President were to 
     implement an agreement in a manner that is not authorized by 
     law, the courts can strike down such actions. If the Congress 
     disagrees with a trade agreement, it can pass legislation 
     directing the President to implement the agreement in a 
     particular way or to refrain entirely from implementing that 
     agreement. If a trade agreement requires a change in 
     statutory law, Congress along has the authority to make such 
     a change. The Hollings amendment is unnecessary to clarify 
     this point.
       However, the Hollings amendment goes much further, and the 
     absence of hearings has precluded a full opportunity to 
     determine precisely what the implications of the

[[Page S1962]]

     amendment are. By requiring congressional action whenever a 
     trade agreement would ``in effect'' change U.S. law, the 
     Hollings amendment could impose long delays on implementing 
     trade agreements that would otherwise bring immediate 
     benefits to U.S. consumers, firms, and workers. Moreover, the 
     vague term ``in effect'' would cause great uncertainty, since 
     the amendment leaves undefined who determines when an 
     agreement ``in effect'' requires a change in law and what 
     implications arise for implementing changes in regulation 
     or administrative practice called for in trade agreements.
       The burdensome character of the amendment becomes clear 
     when one considers that the Administration concluded 
     approximately 200 trade agreements in the last four years. 
     Under the Hollings amendment, any such agreement that 
     occasioned any change in law, including technical and 
     typically non-controversial changes to our tariff schedule, 
     would have to be approved by the Congress.
       The prospect of nearly continuous consideration of trade 
     agreements by the Congress also raises the possibility of 
     delaying the entry into force of agreements beneficial to the 
     United States. For example, the Hollings amendment could 
     greatly delay--and perhaps jeopardize--recent agreements 
     that:
       Elminiate tariffs on 400 pharmaceutical products shipped to 
     key markets around the world (these tariff cuts had been 
     widely sought by our medical community because of their 
     potential to quickly lower the costs of producing anti-AIDS 
     drugs and other life-saving pharmaceuticals);
       Cuts $5 billion in global tariffs on semiconductors, 
     computers, telecommunications equipment, software, and other 
     information equipment (these are tariff cuts that directly 
     benefit high-technology products made by some of our most 
     highly competitive industries, and that support 1.5 million 
     manufacturing jobs and 1.8 million related services jobs); 
     and
       Open the global market for basic telecommunication 
     services, providing enormous benefits to our dynamic U.S. 
     telecommunications industry.
       If the Hollings amendment were applied to these agreements, 
     they would have to be submitted to Congress for review and 
     approval. Yet each of these agreements was negotiated under 
     congressional authorization and in close consultation with 
     Congress, and each enjoys overwhelming industry support.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President I will not go through the whole statement 
of administration policy except to say the administration strongly 
supports the resolution which will authorize the appointment of 
Charlene Barshefsky as U.S. Trade Representative. Among other things it 
says:

       The Hollings amendment could require congressional approval 
     of every trade agreement that might be construed to require 
     changing U.S. law. The amendment is unnecessary to assure the 
     executive branch is conforming to congressional mandates on 
     trade negotiations, is overly burdensome for both the 
     President and Congress, and could endanger the benefits to 
     the United States of some trade agreements.
       The prospect of nearly continuous consideration of trade 
     agreements by the Congress also raises the possibility of 
     delaying the entry into force of agreements beneficial to the 
     United States. For example, the Hollings amendment could 
     greatly delay--and perhaps jeopardize--recent agreements that 
     eliminate tariffs on 400 pharmaceutical products shipped to 
     key markets around the world * * * cut $5 billion in global 
     tariffs on semiconductors, computers, telecommunications 
     equipment, software * * * open the global market for basic 
     telecommunication services, providing enormous benefits to 
     our dynamic U.S. telecommunications industry.

  Mr. President, what does the Washington Post say about it? It says:

       The Telecommunications Deal. After 3 years of tough 
     negotiations, the world's leading economies have reached a 
     landmark agreement to liberalize trade in telecommunications 
     services. Acting U.S. Trade Representative Charlene 
     Barshefsky, who led both sets of talks, predicted the U.S. 
     information technology industry will now lead the growth of 
     the U.S. economy as the car industry did 40 years ago. This 
     wasn't a traditional agreement in which one country 
     grudgingly agreed to accept textile imports, say, in order to 
     gain access for its tomato exports. Instead, every nation 
     involved acknowledged the benefit to itself of liberalization 
     and deregulation of the model that the United States and 
     Great Britain have pioneered. Half the world's people have 
     never made a phone call. Poorer countries, where most of them 
     live, will attract the investment that they need only if they 
     play by these new rules of openness and competition.

  The Washington Times:

       Teleco Mania. For the second time in three months, tough 
     minded and determined U.S. trade negotiators under the 
     auspices of the 2-year-old World Trade Organization have 
     hammered out a multinational high tech trade agreement that 
     will be immensely beneficial to firms and workers based in 
     the United States and consumers worldwide.

  The list goes on and on, Mr. President, of the almost universal 
praise of this landmark agreement that Ms. Barshefsky has been able to 
achieve. Frankly, there were a lot of pessimists who believed that she 
could not do that. I believe she is well qualified for the job. 
President Clinton referred to Ambassador Barshefsky as a brilliant 
negotiator for our country. She is a tough and determined 
representative for our country, fighting to open markets to the goods 
and services produced by American workers and businesses.
  I will not go through her qualifications, Mr. President, in the 
interest of time because they are illustrious.
  Her foresight and depth of understanding of our country's 
international trade relations are essential to our Nation's continued 
economic growth. She is exceptionally qualified, and I am sure that the 
full Senate will join me in confirming her nomination to be the U.S. 
Trade Representative.
  From financial services to Japanese insurance to global 
telecommunications, Ambassador Barshefsky has proven herself to be a 
tough negotiator. For example, in April of 1996, as one of her acts as 
USTR, Ambassador Barshefsky walked away from the poor efforts made 
under the auspices of the World Trade Organization regarding basic 
telecommunications services. She made everyone come back to the table 
and last month concluded the WTO's basic telecom agreement which 
represents a change of profound importance. A 60-year tradition of 
telecommunications monopolies and closed markets will be replaced 
starting in January 1998 by market opening, deregulation and 
competition, the principles championed here by many of us for a long 
time.
  Senator Hollings has concluded that the recently announced 
telecommunications agreement of the World Trade Organization would 
change U.S. statutory law. Not only do I disagree, but as I mentioned, 
the Senator finds himself on the other side of the argument with 
President Clinton.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that written responses to 
questions from Senator Lott and Senator Kerrey be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            Written Response to Questions From Senator Lott


                           Telecommunications

       Could you please explain in greater detail the 
     administration's position that no implementing legislation, 
     or legislation of any kind, will be required for the 
     telecommunications agreement currently under negotiation in 
     Geneva.
       The U.S. offer will reflect our statutory obligations. 
     While at this time we do not believe its implementation will 
     require any legislative changes, we are continuing to consult 
     with Congress on this issue.
       The offer allows market access to the local, long distance 
     and international services markets through any means of 
     network technology, either on a facilities-basis or through 
     resale of existing network capacity. The U.S. offer limits 
     direct foreign investment in companies holding common carrier 
     radio licenses, as is required by Section 310 (a) and (b)(1), 
     (2) and (3) of the Communications Act of 1934 (the ``Act''). 
     The offer specifically states that foreign governments, 
     aliens, foreign corporations and U.S. corporations more than 
     20% owned by foreign governments, aliens or foreign 
     corporations may not directly hold a radio license.
       Based on Section 310(b)(4) of the Act, the offer places no 
     new restrictions on indirect foreign ownership of a U.S. 
     corporation holding a radio license. Section 310(b)(4) allows 
     such indirect foreign ownership unless the Federal 
     Communications Commission finds that the public interest will 
     be served by the refusal to grant such a license. The U.S. 
     offer is to allow indirect foreign ownership, up to 100%, 
     under this provision.
       The U.S. offer permits a foreign government indirectly to 
     own a radio license, unless the FCC finds that such ownership 
     is not in the public interest. Under the public interest 
     test, the FCC looks at many factors, such as financial and 
     technical ability of the applicant, international agreements, 
     national security concerns, foreign policy concerns, law 
     enforcement concerns and the effect of entry on competition 
     in the U.S. market. In the event of a successful conclusion 
     to these negotiations, the U.S. offer will allow the FCC to 
     continue to apply these public interest criteria, as long as 
     they do not distinguish among applicants on the basis of 
     nationality or reciprocity, consistent with the obligations 
     of the General Agreement on Trade in Services.
       The U.S. offer maintains COMSAT's monopoly on access to 
     INTELSAT and Inmarsat, as required by the Communications 
     Satellite Act (47 U.S.C. 721).
       The offer does not contain any restrictions on licenses to 
     land submarine cables based on the statutory authority of the 
     President (delegated to the Federal Communications Commission 
     in consultation with the Secretary of State) to issue landing 
     licenses. The statute permits withholding such licenses to 
     assist in obtaining landing rights

[[Page S1963]]

     in other countries maintaining the rights or interests of the 
     United States and its citizens and protecting U.S. security 
     (47 U.S.C. 35). The United States will obtain landing rights 
     in other WTO member countries if the negotiations conclude 
     successfully and will retain its ability to protect its 
     national security.
                                  ____


         Written Response to Questions from Senator Bob Kerrey


                           telecommunications

       Last April when the parties agreed to postpone the deadline 
     for negotiations in the GBT, the U.S. offer did not reflect 
     the statutory language under sections 310 (a) and (b) that 
     the foreign ownership limitations under the law apply to 
     ``foreign governments or their representatives.'' Does USTR 
     intend to modify the U.S. offer to adhere to the statutory 
     language of sections 310 (a) and (b)? If not, why?
       The U.S. offer will reflect our statutory obligations. 
     While at this time we do not believe its implementation will 
     require any legislative changes, we are continuing to consult 
     with Congress on this issue.
       The offer allows market access to the local, long distance 
     and international services markets through any means of 
     network technology, either on a facilities-basis or through 
     resale of existing network capacity. The U.S. offer limits 
     direct foreign investment in companies holding common carrier 
     radio licenses, as is required by Section 310 (a) and (b) 
     (1), (2) and (3) of the Communications Act of 1934 (the 
     ``Act''). The offer specifically states that foreign 
     governments, aliens, foreign corporations and U.S. 
     corporations more than 20% owned by foreign governments, 
     aliens or foreign corporations may not directly hold a radio 
     license.
       Based on Section 310(b)(4) of the Act, the offer places no 
     new restrictions on indirect foreign ownership of a U.S. 
     corporation holding a radio license. Section 310(b)(4) allows 
     such indirect foreign ownership unless the Federal 
     Communications Commission finds that the public interest will 
     be served by the refusal to grant such a license. The U.S. 
     offer is to allow indirect foreign ownership, up to 100%, 
     under this provision.
       The U.S. offer permits a foreign government indirectly to 
     own a radio license, unless the FCC finds that such ownership 
     is not in the public interest. Under the public interest 
     test, the FCC looks at many factors, such as financial and 
     technical ability of the applicant, international agreements, 
     national security concerns, foreign policy concerns, law 
     enforcement concerns and the effect of entry on competition 
     in the U.S. market. In the event of a successful conclusion 
     to these negotiations, the U.S. offer will allow the FCC to 
     continue to apply these public interest criteria, as long as 
     they do not distinguish among applicants on the basis of 
     nationality or reciprocity, consistent with the obligations 
     of the General Agreement on Trade in Services.
       The Administration is continuing to consult with Congress 
     and the FCC to determine whether it would be helpful to 
     modify the U.S. offer to include any additional parts of the 
     statute's text in the offer's text.
       In the alternative, if USTR does modify its offer, please 
     cite what precedent gives USTR the authority to hold that the 
     exception under the public interest waiver of section 
     310(b)(4) vitiates the statutory limitation of control by a 
     ``foreign government or the representative thereof'' under 
     310(a), which has no waiver?
       Section 310(a) prohibits direct ownership of a radio 
     license by a foreign government or its representative. 
     Similarly, Section 310(b)(1) prohibits direct ownership of 
     a radio license by an alien or its representative. Section 
     (b)(2) contains the same prohibition for foreign 
     corporations. Section 310(b)(3) prohibits direct ownership 
     of more than 20% of a U.S. corporation holding a radio 
     license by a foreign government, an alien or a foreign 
     corporation. All these prohibitions on direct ownership 
     are contained in the U.S. offer.
       Section 310(b)(4) explicitly allows indirect ownership by 
     all three--a foreign government or its representative, an 
     alien or its representative or a foreign corporation, unless 
     the FCC determines that such ownership is not in the public 
     interest. This is also reflected in the U.S. offer. In 
     preparing the offer, the Administration has consulted closely 
     with Congress and FCC staff and is continuing to consult on 
     the question of implementing legislation and whether to 
     modify the offer.
       If USTR successfully negotiates an agreement, would there 
     be any change or limitation on the FCC's use of the Effective 
     Competitive Opportunities test to examine the openness of a 
     foreign market, which it adopted pursuant to the public 
     interest waiver test of section 310(b)(4)?
       If the GBT concludes successfully, the FCC will continue to 
     apply the public interest test to applicants under section 
     214 and to applicants for radio licenses under section 310. 
     The only change that would occur would be that the Executive 
     Branch would advise the FCC not to consider reciprocity as a 
     prong of the test on the basis that the U.S. would have 
     obtained substantial market access commitments from its major 
     trading partners and the vast majority of countries whose 
     carriers are likely to apply for radio licenses in the U.S.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the reason why I ask that is because there 
are many technical and legitimate questions that are raised by Senator 
Lott, Senator Kerrey, and by Senator Hollings. The responses that 
Ambassador Barshefsky made, I think, are important to be in the Record. 
I will not take the time of the Senate to read those.
  The amendment, I believe, is not only not good for America, but I 
believe that the amendment represents a different view of trade and how 
nations should treat each other in this world competitive marketplace. 
I believe that the American worker can compete with any worker in the 
world. I believe that the American worker is the finest in the world. I 
would rather have an American working to build a product than any other 
nationality, without any disrespect to any of them. With that 
fundamental belief that American workers can compete and do a better 
job, then I am in favor of reducing the barriers, which the agreement 
that Charlene Barshefsky has negotiated will accomplish.
  Telecommunications is a $600-billion-a-year industry. The World Trade 
Organization's basic telecom agreement will double the size of the 
industry over the next 10 years. There is not a single 
telecommunications business in America that does not totally support 
this agreement. The agreement will lead to the creation of countless 
jobs in U.S. communications companies, in high tech equipment makers, 
and in a range of industries such as software, information services and 
electronic publishing that benefit from telecom development.
  This agreement is literally unprecedented. It covers over 90 percent 
of world telecommunications revenue and includes 69 countries, both 
developed and developing. It ensures that U.S. companies can compete 
against and invest in all existing carriers. Before this agreement, 
only 17 percent of the top 20 telecommunications markets were open to 
U.S. companies. Now they have access to nearly 100 percent of these 
markets.
  The range of services and technologies covered by this agreement is 
breathtaking--from submarine cables to satellites, from wide-band 
networks to cellular phones, from business internets to fixed wireless 
for rural and underserved regions. The market access opportunities 
cover the entire spectrum of innovative communications technologies 
pioneered by American industry and workers.
  Most important, the agreement will save billions of dollars for 
American consumers. The average cost of international phone calls will 
drop by 80 percent, from approximately $1 a minute on average to 20 
cents per minute over the next several years. The agreement, as I said 
earlier, was widely lauded by those in the telecommunications industry.
  Mr. President, of equal concern is the impact this amendment would 
have on the ability of the President to negotiate future trade 
agreements. The Hollings amendment could require congressional approval 
of every single trade agreement that might result in any change in 
regulations or administrative practice, no matter how slight the 
change. The overwhelming majority of trade agreements that the 
President concludes can be--and traditionally have been--implemented 
under statutes that the Congress has already put on the books. If the 
President tries to implement an agreement in a manner that is not 
provided for under legislation, the courts can prohibit him from taking 
those steps.

  The amendment is harmful to our Nation's trade interests. The 
approval requirement imposed by the amendment would impose long delays 
and could create uncertainties for lucrative trade agreements that 
would otherwise bring immediate benefits to American consumers, firms 
and workers. It is the American workers who would be hurt by this 
amendment.
  Under Senator Hollings' amendment, the President could not use the 
powers already granted him if he intends to make any change in 
regulatory or administrative practice, no matter how insignificant. 
This amendment would require an act of Congress every time the 
President allocates a new cheese or sugar quota, adds a quota on a 
textile or apparel product, or implements a tariff rate quota on 
agricultural products, such as those recently negotiated on imported 
goods such as tobacco. The President has traditionally made these 
routine changes

[[Page S1964]]

under proclamation authority granted by the Congress.
  Finally, Ambassador Barshefsky will also have a busy coming year. It 
is my hope that she will move quickly to send the Congress legislation 
to provide for a clean reauthorization of fast-track authority so 
negotiations can begin immediately to expand the North American Free 
Trade Agreement to Chile. Pending successful expansion of NAFTA, 
negotiations should continue on the development of a free trade area of 
the Americas.
  Substantial questions will also arise regarding extension of MFN 
status to China and the accession of China into the World Trade 
Organization. I am confident that Ambassador Barshefsky is up to these 
challenges.
  Mr. President, the United States has historically been a world leader 
in opening markets and expanding trade. I believe leadership waned over 
the first term of the Clinton administration. It is my hope, and, 
indeed, my prediction, that under the leadership of Charlene 
Barshefsky, the United States will again take its place as the world 
leader for open and fair trade.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hollings amendment and support 
Senate Joint Resolution 5 so that Ambassador Barshefsky can be 
confirmed and appointed to serve as our next U.S. Trade Representative.
  Mr. President, I regret there is not time, but there will be 
opportunities in the future to debate these issues with my friend from 
South Carolina, who I have said on many occasions is not only 
enlightening but on occasion entertaining as well, which makes for 
spirited and involved debate.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time back to Senator Roth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of 
Charlene Barshefsky to be the next United States Trade Representative. 
In representing a State with a long history of trade with Canada, I 
have taken particular interest in President Clinton's nominee for USTR.
  I have had serious concerns about this administration's lack of 
aggressiveness in pursuing the concerns of Maine's farmers and 
businesses regarding unfair trade practices by neighboring Canada. 
Canada is Maine's No. 1 trading partner, and Mainers value this 
relationship, but we want it to be a fair relationship. When evidence 
is found that trading practices are not fair, the United States needs 
to take strong and effective action.
  To underscore my concern about this problem, I withheld my support 
for Ambassador Barshefsky until I had an opportunity to meet with her 
to discuss several trade issues important to the people of my State. 
Farmers, fishermen, and others in natural resource industries have long 
been concerned about unfair trade practices by the Canadian Government.
  Maine potato farmers, in particular, have labored under trade 
practices that have threatened the very survival of some farms. 
Particularly troubling are apparent subsidies from the Canadian 
Government that allow Canadian farmers to sell their products at 
artificially low prices, thus enabling Canadian farmers to dump large 
volumes of potatoes into the American market. At the same time, there 
is concern that Canadians may be erecting trade barriers that make it 
difficult for our farmers to sell their products in Canada.
  We cannot continue to tolerate Canadian trading practices that 
adversely affect Maine potato farmers, who have seen more than their 
share of hard times. However, I am encouraged by Ambassador 
Barshefsky's recent actions, which include asking the International 
Trade Commission to undertake an investigation to determine the nature 
and extent of Canadian potato subsidies. This is a step in the right 
direction and a good sign that these issues will finally get the 
attention they deserve. But it is only a first step. It is critical 
that the administration follow through and take action to assure a 
level playing field.
  Another issue I raised with the Ambassador was the frustration of 
some Maine shellfish companies with newly instituted inspection fees on 
shellfish products exported to Canada. Maine shellfish exporters have 
been concerned that the Canadians are unfairly targeting their products 
for inspection in an attempt to make it more difficult for Maine 
shellfish to be shipped to Canada. On this issue I found the Ambassador 
to be very responsive. She has been helpful with gathering information, 
and I am pleased USTR officials have begun meetings with their Canadian 
counterparts to review these onerous fees.
  Finally, I also raised the issue, which the distinguished Senator 
from South Carolina has talked about, and that is the issue of the U.S. 
tariffs on capacitors. As part of the Information Technology Agreement 
negotiated in Singapore last year, the administration agreed to a 
European proposal to eliminate the current 9 percent tariff on 
capacitors entering the United States. Under the agreement, the tariff 
would be eliminated in July of this year.
  The elimination of this tariff could pose a serious hardship on 
several American companies, one of which is in my State of Maine. The 
Ambassador and I discussed this hardship, and I made the case that the 
industry was unaware of even the potential that this tariff could be 
eliminated. I asked what measures could be taken to provide some 
relief.
  I was impressed with the Ambassador's knowledge on this issue, and I 
was very encouraged by a commitment she made to me to find middle 
ground with the Europeans that would give American manufacturers of 
capacitors more time to adjust to a tariff elimination.
  Specifically, we talked about the possibility of having a phaseout of 
the tariff, rather than the abrupt elimination in July.
  In closing, I would like to address the issue of the need to waive a 
provision passed last Congress as part of the lobbying disclosure act. 
This provision prohibits the appointment of any person who has 
represented a foreign government in a trade dispute with the United 
States from serving as USTR or deputy USTR. Like many of my colleagues, 
I was very concerned about the need to exempt someone from a law that 
is on the books and has been passed so recently. Since the foreign 
country involved is Canada, I was particularly concerned because of the 
contentious trading relationship that my State has had over the years 
with Canada on many important products. However, after addressing this 
issue with Ambassador Barshefsky, I learned that she was previously 
exempted from this provision in her capacity as deputy USTR. It, 
therefore, does seem reasonable to me to allow this waiver to follow 
her into her new duties as USTR, and I agree with the Finance 
Committee's unanimous recommendation to waive the law.
  I am pleased to have had the opportunity to meet with Ambassador 
Barshefsky and her staff to discuss these important issues. They are 
critical issues to my constituents. I found her to be very 
knowledgeable and responsive. I am hopeful that her tenure as USTR will 
bring about renewed interest, commitment and, most of all, action on 
trade issues confronting the people of Maine.
  I appreciate the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee 
yielding me time, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to express my extremely 
strong, very enthusiastic support for the nomination of Charlene 
Barshefsky to be our U.S. Trade Representative. This is an important 
vote for America, for its future. I urge my colleagues to give her the 
unanimous vote of confidence that she has, in fact, already earned 
through her record of incredible fortitude, ability, and a long list of 
trade accomplishments, even as acting USTR.
  The President has put forward, frankly, a most unusual person--
unusually skilled, highly qualified, for one of the most important jobs 
in the U.S. in Government, and that is being

[[Page S1965]]

our Nation's lead trade negotiator and keeping up with all developments 
all over the world all the time. It is an incredible job.

  She now should have the official title to proceed with the job 
awaiting her in trade negotiations and efforts that offer immense 
opportunities and extremely high stakes for our industries, for our 
workers, and for our economy.
  In just the last year alone, on a whole host of other things, as our 
acting trade representative, Charlene Barshefsky has concluded a 
renewal of our critical semiconductor agreement with the Japanese; seen 
through an agreement to remove tariffs around the world on information 
technology products; and won agreement of a massive telecommunications 
pact that promises more than $1 trillion in worldwide economic benefits 
through the year 2010, all of this as acting trade representative.
  Beyond that, I would point to one of Charlene Barshefsky's strongest 
qualifications: Her masterful grasp of complicated issues surrounding 
China's integration into the global economy.
  We have all read, hopefully, all of the writing that has come out 
about China since the death of Deng Xiaoping. I believe that China is 
the single biggest long-term macroeconomic challenge facing the United 
States. We cannot duck it. We must handle it intelligently.
  China is the world's largest country, in terms of population, and its 
economy will surpass ours sometime in the not too distant future. If 
its accession to the World Trade Organization, in particular, is not 
handled properly, the ramifications for the United States could be 
serious and long lasting. This takes the hand of a master. That hand 
belongs to Charlene Barshefsky.
  We are also very fortunate to count on Ambassador Barshefsky as we 
face the challenge of our trade relationship with Japan. This winter I 
took, as I always do, a delegation of West Virginia business people to 
Japan and Taiwan. One of the messages we heard, in a troubling fashion 
very frequently, was that Japan was looking much more toward turning to 
the World Trade Organization for the settlement of previously 
negotiated bilateral trade agreements, turning, therefore, away from 
the bilateral process which has traditionally characterized our 
negotiating relationship with Japan.
  I don't blame them if they are trying to avoid a U.S. negotiating 
team headed by somebody as forceful and capable as Charlene Barshefsky. 
My response is that overall United States-Japan relations depend on our 
ability to deal with one another, on a bilateral basis, on our trading 
issues, and then have occasional recourse to the WTO, but none of this 
could we do any better than by having Ambassador Barshefsky at the helm 
representing our country, our people, the people from my State.
  It is impossible for me to explain how strongly I feel about the 
nomination and the confirmation of that nomination hopefully on this 
day.
  To turn to the amendment we are now debating, the Senator from South 
Carolina is one of the most forceful advocates in the Congress for 
American interests in the global economy. I learned a great deal about 
issues coming from discussions with him about the globalization of the 
economy. He talks about it a great deal with great erudition, and I 
admire and share his intense commitment to American workers and 
industries.
  The Senator from South Carolina also has a very long-time interest in 
the issue of foreign ownership of American telecommunications services, 
which, in fact, happens to be the root cause of the Senator's 
amendment, although this dispute is not about broadcast rights but 
about telecommunications services--not about broadcast rights but about 
telecommunications services--like cellular or international calling.
  Clearly, there is a difference of opinion about what U.S. law allows 
in the area of ownership of telecommunications services. This is a 
difference of opinion, not only between the Senator from South Carolina 
and USTR, but between the Senator and something called the Federal 
Communications Commission, which he declines to recognize on this 
matter.
  The Senator, as the former chairman of the Commerce Committee and the 
ranking member now, also disagrees with the current chairman of the 
committee, Senator John McCain, who has just spoken, as well as the 
chairman of the House Commerce Committee, Mr. Bliley, over this law.
  As I understand it, the U.S. offer in the telecommunications 
agreement tracks U.S. law, meaning this dispute is really over the 
interpretation of current U.S. law by the FCC, which the ranking member 
of the Commerce Committee does not like, not the trade agreement 
reached by USTR.
  I thoroughly agree with the Senator from South Carolina that Congress 
must assert its constitutional right and responsibility to oversee 
international trade and international commerce, and I am in full 
agreement Congress should act when a trade agreement makes commitments 
that differ from current law. But that is already the law of the land. 
That exists now under the current law.
  If a trade agreement reached by the executive branch requires a 
change in law, Congress must act to implement the agreement. When the 
President agreed to the Uruguay round, Congress had to pass 
implementing legislation for us to meet its terms, which we did. 
However, to cite another example, when the President agreed to the 
shipbuilding agreement at the OECD, Congress did not agree to change 
American law to implement that particular agreement.
  As somebody who, like the former chairman and ranking member of the 
Commerce Committee, opposed NAFTA as I did, I am certainly not saying 
that we should signal that this or any other administration has a blank 
check to make trade agreements that are not in America's interest. But 
that is not what the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina is 
about. This amendment would create a whole new role for Congress that 
could have a chilling effect--would have a chilling effect--on trade 
negotiations that, in fact, seek to serve and strengthen U.S. 
interests, which he talks about.
  My problem with the Senator's amendment is that it would do much more 
to reaffirm Congress' role in responding to trade agreements that 
require a change in our laws. By using the language in the amendment 
which says that any trade law which would--and then the keywords are--
``in effect amend or repeal statutory law,'' I am afraid it would 
entangle Congress in a constant, complicated, unnecessary process of 
acting on trade agreements that do not embody actual changes in U.S. 
law and don't require congressional involvement to obtain the benefits 
of those agreements.
  I respect the fact that the Senator questions a part of the new 
telecommunications trade agreement negotiated in Geneva. Disagreements 
between members of the legislative branch and executive branch are very 
common, even on an intraparty basis. But we have existing procedures to 
resolve disputes like that when they come up. A challenge can be taken 
up with the courts or something called legislation can be offered to 
change the particular practice in dispute.
  The problem with the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina is 
that instead of proposing a specific change of law, which addresses his 
interpretation of the law affecting ownership of telecommunications 
services, he is proposing a new, generic, far-reaching role for 
Congress that could affect nearly all future trade agreements.
  For example, USTR recently concluded an agreement which would 
eliminate tariffs that were on some widely sought after anti-AIDS 
drugs. Under current law, this could be put into effect--under current 
law--in 60 days under Presidential proclamation authority. However, if 
the Hollings amendment were to pass, such routine and noncontroversial 
changes would require a new act of Congress that could mean waiting 
months or maybe even watching the benefits of this trade agreement 
never materialize.
  The amendment by the Senator from South Carolina calls for a major 
shift in U.S. trade policy. It has not been discussed or considered in 
the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over all reciprocal trade 
agreements.
  Finally, even if all these questions could be answered, the House has 
already said that they will ``blue slip'' the waiver resolution if it 
contains this amendment, because it goes against

[[Page S1966]]

the constitutional provision that all measures which affect revenues 
must originate in the House of Representatives. So this amendment on 
the waiver resolution would doom the underlying nomination, and 
Charlene Bar- 
shefsky is too good a nominee to see that happen.
  With respect for my colleague from South Carolina, I strongly urge my 
colleagues to vote against his amendment. This is not the way, not the 
time, nor the policy to use in resolving the Senator's dispute over a 
specific provision of a specific trade agreement. That disagreement 
should be pursued through other avenues that all of us use on a very 
regular basis. In this case, the amendment would establish an entirely 
new process, a new law, a new role for Congress regarding all trade 
agreements. It is a role that is unnecessary and could prevent our 
trade negotiators from doing the kinds of work that we charge them to 
do in representing our best interests.
  Rarely, if ever, have I seen an international agreement that has 
virtually no opponents in either the business community or from 
American workers. Usually, people point to winners and losers in 
international trade agreements. Sometimes people are afraid they could 
lose their jobs, or they feel that their business could be 
disadvantaged relative to their competitors. But on this Telecom 
agreement, notwithstanding the objections of the Senator from South 
Carolina and a couple of others, I've heard barely a peep.
  This international telecommunications agreement truly breaks new 
ground. For the first time ever, an international trade agreement 
effectively guarantees competition. The United States put forward 
regulatory guidelines modeled on our own telecommunications law, and 65 
countries agreed to adopt most, if not all, those procompetitive 
principles. That is extraordinary.
  This agreement between 69 countries will open nearly 95 percent of 
the worldwide telecommunications services market to competition. A 
market which will exceed $600 billion in gross revenues this year 
alone. Mr. President, I'd point out that in April of last year, 
Charlene Barshefsky walked away from the talks when only 40 countries 
had made offers, representing only 60 percent of global revenues.
  Included in this agreement are local, long-distance, and 
international calling services; submarine cables; satellite-based 
services; wide-band networks; cellular phones; business intranets; and 
fixed wireless services for rural and underserved regions. What this 
agreement did not cover are broadcast services.
  It is believed that competition by telecom service providers is 
expected to lead more than $1 trillion in economic benefits for 
consumers around the world through 2010. While U.S. consumers have 
already reaped much of the benefit of deregulation and increased 
competition, the FCC has pointed to billions of dollars of savings from 
this deal for American consumers due to the eventual lowering of costs 
for international calling by 80 percent--from more than $1 per minute 
to less than 20 cents--the actual cost of placing such a call.
  I'll admit that I am disappointed that some countries, such as Japan, 
Korea, and Canada, didn't offer to open up their markets quite as much 
as the United States did, but reaching this agreement doesn't in any 
way prevent us from further negotiations with them in this area.
  I'd also point out two things. First, even though these countries, 
and some others, maintained limits on purchasing existing providers, in 
most cases, American firms can still go in to those same countries and 
compete on their own--and the regulatory principles will guarantee that 
they are not blocked from connecting to existing telecommunications 
networks.
  Second, if it is Japan we are talking about, the idea that anyone 
plans to purchase more than 20 percent of NTT any time soon, is 
ridiculous. NTT is the world's largest company, worth well over $100 
billion--I'm told that 20 percent would cost about $23 billion. Right 
now, 3 percent of NTT is owned by foreigners, and I haven't heard that 
anyone plans to buy much more than that. What American firms are 
talking about is the chance to start or invest in new common carriers 
in Japan, such as Japan Telecom, which is connected to the Japanese 
Railroad, and which anyone can invest in with no limitations. I'll 
admit that I am concerned with the 20-percent limitation on KDD, which 
is a much smaller company than NTT--about the size of one of our Baby 
Bells, but I'm hopeful we can work this out in future negotiations.
  To conclude, today we have finally reached the moment to extend the 
title of United States Trade Representative to somebody who I think is 
magnificently qualified to take that job. Superb qualifications, 
superbly tested, and now prepared to advance America's interests even 
further. What we are going through today threatens to block her, which 
hurts her in China, which hurts her in Japan, which hurts her all over 
the world, and therefore through hurting her, our interests.
  So I urge the unanimous vote that she deserves, that she be made 
Ambassador, the granting of the Dole waiver that is required, and the 
defeat of the amendment that does not belong here and has consequences 
that could truly harm, not help, American interests. I yield the floor 
and thank the distinguish Finance chairman.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I strongly support the adoption of the 
amendment introduced by the senior Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Hollings]. On the face of it, it is a straightforward, simple 
proposition that attempts to preserve the integrity of the laws that we 
pass, and that are the subject of discussion and/or negotiation between 
the United States and other nations. It says that if our Executive 
branch negotiators reach an agreement which amends or repeals U.S. law, 
that agreement may not be implemented until the agreement is approved 
by the Congress. Who could dispute such an obviously valid proposition?
  The case at hand, the negotiation of a new telecommunications 
services agreement, apparently effects changes in U.S. law dealing with 
access to the U.S. market in relation to the access of American 
companies into foreign markets. This is a matter which was very 
controversial in connection with the consideration of the landmark 
Telecommunications Act of 1996. In working with the Commerce committee 
on this legislation, I was involved in developing certain changes to 
section 310(b) of the underlying statute dealing with foreign 
ownership. The matter was so controversial that the conferees on that 
legislation were unable to reach agreement, and changes to the foreign 
ownership provisions were dropped from the final conference agreement.
  It is all the more important that our negotiations, in the light of 
the controversial nature of this matter, take care not to effect what 
amounts to a change in the law by virtue of negotiating a provision of 
an international agreement without taking the role of the Congress into 
account. The law and an agreement should not be put into conflict on 
such a matter, and Senator Hollings is right to insist that no such 
negotiated change should be implemented until the Congress has agreed 
by amending the law which governs the situation.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I support the joint resolution before us 
waiving certain provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 relating to the 
nomination of Ambassador Barshefsky to the position of United States 
Trade Representative.
  Let us make no mistake as to the quality of Ambassador Barshefsky's 
service. We are not simply endorsing her as an exception to the act. 
Rather, she could not be more deserving of confirmation. Let's examine 
her record.
  Her service has been marked by substantive accomplishments on an 
unprecedented scale. Over 200 trade agreements have been enacted, and 
she has been in the middle of the dispute process for the most 
difficult of all--the Chinese anti-piracy agreement--and more than 20 
separate agreements with the Japanese in such areas as auto parts, 
telecommunications, government procurement, semiconductors, and medical 
equipment and technology. Many of her accomplishments have directly 
benefited my State of Utah which, despite its small size, is one of the 
Nation's leading exporters of technology and software.
  Like many other members of the Senate Finance Committee, I have been 
inundated by letters from hundreds of Barshefsky supporters. This

[[Page S1967]]

outpouring of support underscores my own impression, as I expressed at 
the recent Finance Committee hearing, that she is a most qualified 
nominee for U.S. Trade Representative.
  But let me draw attention to one particular comment regarding her 
success in the Chinese trade negotiations. I refer to a statement from 
the Recording Industry Association of America, a sector that has been 
especially hard hit by Chinese intellectual property piracy. In his 
recent letter to me, RIAA chairman and CEO, Jay Berman, reported, ``I 
personally witnessed her negotiations with China in June, 1995, that 
led to the immediate closing of 15 pirate CD [compact disc] plants.''
  She has been repeatedly credited with breakthroughs in other sectors 
as well.
  As my good friend from Delaware said only moments earlier, she has 
vastly expanded market access for American business--in Asia, Latin 
America, and Europe. More importantly, her work will be seen as an 
advent to still another American century, a century that will be marked 
by rising prosperity everywhere.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from 
Delaware.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I have a unanimous-consent request which has 
been cleared with the minority. I ask unanimous consent that following 
the allotted times for debate, the Senate proceed to a vote on or in 
relation to the Hollings amendment No. 19: Senator Hollings 9 minutes, 
Senator Conrad 5 minutes, Senator Daschle 10 minutes, Senator Burns 6 
minutes, Senator Roth 5 minutes; and immediately following that vote 
the joint resolution be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a 
vote on passage of Senate Joint Resolution 5; further, if the 
resolution passes, the Senate then proceed to executive session and 
immediately vote on the confirmation for the nomination of Charlene 
Barshefsky. I further ask unanimous consent that prior to the second 
and third vote there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided in the 
usual form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to briefly address two questions: 
No. 1, the question of a waiver for Ambassador Barshefsky; and, No. 2, 
the approval of Ambassador Barshefsky as our trade representative.
  Mr. President, I represent the State of North Dakota. We are right 
next to Canada. The question of a waiver for Ambassador Barshefsky 
relates to the question of her previous representation of Canada on 
trade issues, and that requires a waiver if she is to become our trade 
representative.
  Mr. President, anyone who has worked with Ambassador Barshefsky 
understands her full commitment and dedication to the trade interests 
of the United States.
  My State has been involved in a longstanding dispute with Canada with 
respect to unfairly traded Canadian grain coming into this country at 
below their cost and having a devastating effect on the farmers of my 
State, not only the producers in North Dakota but farmers in Montana, 
farmers in South Dakota, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska. Charlene 
Barshefsky has stood with us shoulder to shoulder to get a fair result.
  Mr. President, this issue first came up when she was approved as the 
Deputy USTR 4 years ago. She has done a superb job in her position at 
the trade representative's office. I think anybody who has followed her 
career and watched the job she did in negotiating to open up Pacific 
rim countries to our trade, the job that she has done fighting for U.S. 
interests in trade disputes with Canada, that she represented for a 
brief time on limited issues when she was in the private sector, would 
understand there is no reason--none--to deny a waiver to allow Charlene 
Barshefsky to become our trade representative.
  Mr. President, Charlene Barshefsky is superb. I have dealt with many 
trade representatives. Rarely does one find someone of her background, 
her intelligence, her talent and her commitment. Those are qualities 
that we want working for the United States in these very difficult 
trade negotiations. And she has shown her mettle over and over and 
over. I urge my colleagues to vote for the waiver and to vote for 
Charlene Barshefsky to be our next trade representative. I thank the 
Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from Delaware.
  I rise today with some concerns about the new trade representative, 
Charlene Barshefsky. But I also rise to support her nomination. She has 
proven herself to be a tough negotiator as the acting trade 
representative. She recently played a major role in the opening of 
foreign markets in telecommunications, an agreement which we hope will 
decrease the costs of international calls and likely to have similar 
impact on domestic rates as well as U.S. companies competing on a 
worldwide basis.
  But on the other hand, Ms. Barshefsky's bidding on the 
administration's behalf of NAFTA to expand into some South American 
countries has me somewhat concerned.
  There is nobody in this body who fights harder for his people than 
the Senator from South Carolina. And I think I know why, because I 
visited that State one time, and he walks among those people who have 
lost their jobs in textile mills and understands those people's pain.
  We are now suffering that kind of a pain because of the border wars 
with Canada in the State of Montana. Whenever you start talking about 
fast tracking authority to expand NAFTA, and you understand the effect 
NAFTA has had on us in the beef industry and the grain industry--and 
that is what I am; I am not anything else fancy--then I say we have to 
approach that very cautiously, because I am not going to lower the 
living standards of my farmers for the sake of so-called free trade 
unless it is fair trade. If left unchecked, it will also contribute to 
the devastation of other sectors in our Nation's economy as well, if we 
do not just look at some of these things.

  We live in a free economy, we live in a global economy. I admit while 
Canadian livestock producers reap the benefits of new profit markets, 
Montana producers are hit with a flood of imports at the same time that 
the cattle market is already at the bottom of its scale. So we cannot 
afford any more of this. To stem that, we will have to do it through 
enabling legislation.
  I say that the pending amendment is one that has to be discussed 
among the FCC, keeping in mind that the final rule of last year's 
telecom bill has not been written yet. So, I have some very strong 
concerns about the expansion that this President and this 
administration want to take. We see loaded trucks with cattle going 
through Montana, and we say, are they stopping here? And they say, no, 
they are going south. We lost the Mexican market, plus we lost some of 
our own markets through the last little deal. We got snookered a little 
bit talking about NAFTA.
  I oppose any kind of fast track as far as the expansion of NAFTA is 
concerned because I think it has to be done the right way. I voted 
against it the first time, understanding where the Senator from South 
Carolina and the Senator from Montana were coming from, and I will 
probably, unless we have a mechanism we can work out these troubles 
that we have, playing on a level playing field, I am saying right now 
that if you want to ship cattle into the United States, I want you to 
have the same rules and regulations, the same environmental laws as we 
have to comply with in this country. That is only fair.
  If Ms. Barshefsky is a tough negotiator, I will stand beside her, but 
do not use agriculture as a pawn and then sell it out like we have in 
times past. One has to remember that agriculture is still the largest 
contributor to the GDP in this country. I will support her in the 
upcoming confirmation vote and hope that she works with us in Congress 
whenever negotiations of expansion get under way.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.

[[Page S1968]]

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me acknowledge the one kind word we 
got this afternoon in this debate. The Senator from Montana is on 
target. He is right. We go home and we see the jobs not only created at 
the BMW's but we see the jobs that have been lost, and that retraining 
out of Washington will not suffice. I do appreciate it very much, and I 
agree with him. He brings it right to the fore, the straw man they have 
put up.
  They talk fast track, they talk regulations, they talk the 
differences between broadcast and common carrier under the statute, as 
there being a distinction, and, of course, the most serious one they 
bring is the character of the lady herself, which I never would suggest 
anything otherwise, and is of the finest character as an individual, 
Ms. Barshefsky. That is not a debate.
  She happens to say that you do not need any approval of Congress. 
Well, then, I ask, why did the previous man of character, and just as 
dazzling as Ms. Barshefsky, Mickey Kantor--and I inserted in the Record 
his request that we amend the law so he could agree on foreign 
ownership. Now she is saying there is not any agreement, and there are 
all kinds of straw men.
  The junior Senator from West Virginia was saying there is a 
distinction here. I am talking about broadcast rights and television 
services. I put these two sessions in there, and it can be read, ``No 
broadcast or common carrier license shall be granted to the foreign 
government'' and on and on and on. It is crystal clear that there is no 
distinction. That is why none other than the Chairman of the FCC asked 
that it be changed.
  So we really come to the floor after 2 to 3 years of asking for a 
change, not effecting the change, the 95 Members of the U.S. Senate 
voting and saying, all right, we agree that there be no change, and now 
they are all coming and saying, ``Well, this is going to have a 
chilling effect,'' when the special trade representatives change the 
law and give away the store, the 100 percent ownership.

  Heavens above, we cannot make it more clear to everyone. We read 
section 8, article 1, of the Constitution: ``The Congress shall have 
power'' and it goes on ``to lay and collect taxes'' and No. 2, to 
borrow money, and No. 3 ``to regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' 
It does not say regulate foreign nations on a fast track. It does not 
say regulate commerce regulation laws. It says regulate commerce. These 
fellows could not have voted for the Constitution if they had been a 
forefather back in the founding days.
  I never said anything about regulations. The Senator from Rhode 
Island came in and brought that up, and they keep on bringing up these 
straw men and talking about a complicated process. You could not make 
an agreement or anything else of that kind, having a chilling effect. 
The language is just as simple and constitutionally clear as you can 
possibly make it: ``No international trade agreement,'' which is what 
we have in the telecommunications agreement ``which would in effect 
remand or repeal statutory law''--I put the two statutes in that have 
been amended or repealed; not regulations or anything else or fast 
track and all the other things--``of the United States may be 
implemented by or in the United States until the agreement is approved 
by Congress.'' It says that is approved by Congress under its 
constitutional duty.
  Now, there is absolutely a terrible misunderstanding about this so-
called free trade. It is just like the crowd running around acting like 
they have revenues--the doubletalk on the budget. Everybody wants to 
cut the revenues, cut the revenues, taxes are too burdensome, cut the 
revenues, but ``I want to balance the budget and I have a plan to 
balance it.'' How can they pay the bill by cutting the revenues? How 
can we possibly have free trade when we restrict the trade?
  We say to that U.S. corporation, ``Before you can do business, you 
have to have a minimum wage. You have to comply with the Social 
Security requirements for pension and retirement rights. You have to 
have Medicare requirements by the Finance Committee. You have to have 
clean air. You have to have clean water, plant closing notice, parental 
leave,'' and on down the list of all these requirements--OSHA, safety 
workplace, safe machinery. All these requirements that Congress put on 
and then say, ``I have free trade.'' Well, you can go to Mexico and you 
do not have to have any of that. That is why we immediately ipso facto 
with that NAFTA agreement went from a plus balance of trade to a 
whooping negative, which they promised otherwise, losing all the jobs 
and wrecking Mexico and the United States.
  Some question was raised about the Pacific rim. We have a deficit in 
the balance of trade with Indonesia of $4.1 billion. We have a deficit 
in the balance of trade with Japan of $47.5 billion. We have a deficit 
in the balance of trade with China of $39.4 billion. A deficit in the 
balance of trade with Malaysia, $9.4 billion. Taiwan is $11.4 billion. 
A deficit in the Philippines of $1.7 billion. A deficit in Thailand of 
$4.9 billion. A deficit in Singapore of $3.2 billion. And we can cite 
the European ones. I had them here on a list a minute ago. We know 
there is a deficit in Canada, and, yet, they talk about everything so 
magnificent. Let's rush over to China and get another agreement--quick. 
Heavens above, don't they understand that we are losing, we are not 
winning? This crowd around here act like they are accomplishing 
something.

  Well, we have the Federal Republic of Germany, minus $15.4 billion; 
Venezuela, minus $8.1 billion; Italy, deficit and a balance, minus $9.4 
billion. We can go right on down the list. It is all in all in all--I 
said the sum total of merchandise trade in deficit. That is, we bought 
manufactured goods. There is the great productive United States--not 
the workers. We know the workers are the most productive. That is why 
we got 100 German industries. That is why we have 50 Japanese 
industries. That is why we have, companies Michelin--I called on them 
35 years ago, and now we got 11,600 jobs from France in my State. We 
are not talking about productivity. We are talking about the 
productivity of this Congress, this Government up here. We are the ones 
that are not producing. We are the ones that are not producing, chasing 
our tail around the mulberry bush, with independent prosecutors and 
investigations.
  We know the problem is too much money in the game. Everyone has to 
skirt around this, twist this, turn that, and along goes the Supreme 
Court saying, soft money, you can do this and that and the next thing. 
So there we are. We are not producing here. We have $187 billion more 
than we bought in merchandise than what we sold. They keep on talking 
about exports, exports. So we are going out of business and nobody 
wants to talk about it. They bring up all these straw men about the 
complicated process, the chilling effect, new role for Congress--there 
is no new role. It is the only role that we have, a constitutional 
role. I think that we ought to just retain the balance of the time.
  I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I retain the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we have had a great deal of debate on the 
Hollings amendment. So, in closing, I will be brief, but I want to make 
two simple points. First, no trade agreement--I emphasize ``no trade 
agreement''--has the stature to supersede U.S. statutory law. If a 
trade agreement seeks to accomplish a result not in conformity with 
U.S. statutory law, the Congress must enact legislation to achieve that 
result.
  Second, the amendment, whatever its merits, will cause Senate Joint 
Resolution 5 to be blue-slipped in the House if the amendment is agreed 
to. The only result that the amendment can accomplish is to derail the 
Barshefsky nomination. Make no mistake, I have a letter from Bill 
Archer, chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. He says that, 
``Specifically, I understand that the Senate maybe asked to consider 
particular provisions, such as one suggested by Senator Hollings, which 
would change the manner in which Congress considers trade agreements

[[Page S1969]]

and legislation having a direct affect on customs revenue. Although I 
strongly support Ambassador Barshefsky's nomination, I would have no 
choice but to insist on the House constitutional prerogative and to 
seek the return to the Senate of any legislation including such a 
provision.''
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Hollings amendment. I 
yield whatever time I have to my distinguished colleague from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the chairman and I have a letter we have 
just received from Charles F.C. Ruff, counsel to the President, and 
after the upcoming vote, we will vote on the resolution itself. He 
states:

       Because the President strongly desires to appoint 
     Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky as USTR, and in order to 
     ensure the absolute propriety, without question, of her 
     appointment, President Clinton will not appoint Ambassador 
     Barshefsky until S.J. Res. 5 has been enacted.

  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter be printed 
in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, DC, March 5, 1997.
     Hon. William Roth, Chairman,
     Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Ranking Member,
     Senate Finance Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan: I write to urge 
     you to pass S.J. Res. 5 as quickly as possible without 
     amendment. As you know, Section 21(b) of the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1995 prohibits the President from 
     appointing anyone to serve as United States Trade 
     Representative (USTR) or Deputy USTR if that person had in 
     the past directly represented, aided or advised a foreign 
     government in a trade dispute or trade negotiation with the 
     United States. Because the President strongly desires to 
     appoint Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky as USTR and in order 
     to ensure the absolute propriety, without question, of her 
     appointment, President Clinton will not appoint Ambassador 
     Barshefsky until S.J. Res. 5 has been enacted.
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles F.C. Ruff,
                                         Counsel to the President.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to listen to 
the debate this afternoon, and I appreciate and commend the 
participation of the distinguished Senator from Arizona and our ranking 
member on the Finance Committee, and certainly the chair of the Finance 
Committee, the Senator from Delaware, for their leadership on this 
issue.
  I think it has been shown this afternoon that, as a representative of 
the United States in trade negotiations around the world, Ambassador 
Barshefsky has proven herself to be a tough and effective advocate of 
American interests. Her solid record of achievement has done much to 
level the playing field for American producers. She understands the 
challenges facing the United States in the world trading system. Her 
negotiating style combines careful preparation, great stamina, 
determination, and a willingness to exercise the leverage provided by 
U.S. trade laws when circumstances warrant it.
  For example, as a key architect of the United States-Japan Framework 
Agreements, she used the leverage provided by tariffs on Japanese 
luxury car imports to gain better market access in Japan for American 
car manufacturers without penalizing consumers back home. Thanks, in 
part, to her efforts, exports of foreign vehicles to Japan have 
increased by 30 percent last year, and the number of American franchise 
dealer outlets reached near 20. American companies are making 
substantial investments in Japan and forging important new partnerships 
with Japanese business.
  Ambassador Barshefsky has also demonstrated she appreciates the 
crucial role agriculture trade plays in the American economy. Last 
year, the trade surplus in agricultural products reached $28.5 billion, 
the largest of any industry. Still, as she has acknowledged to me, we 
could do far better. Annual surveys compiled by the Office of U.S. 
Trade Representative indicate that roughly half of the foreign trade 
barriers facing U.S. products are in the agricultural sector.
  Persistent market access barriers and other unfair trade practices 
continue to be a source of concern, and although agricultural exports, 
as a whole, have risen, problems remain in many areas, including beef 
and cattle prices.
  In my view, liberalizing world trade is part of the answer to 
problems in the agricultural economy. However, our negotiators must be 
prepared not only to seek new global agreements but also to ensure that 
individual trading partners comply with their market access commitments 
from previous ones.
  Thankfully, in Charlene Barshefsky, we have found someone who 
understands this challenge. In recent years, she has worked to increase 
beef exports to Korea, increase the availability of fresh produce in 
Japan and China, and thwart European trade barriers that could have 
devastated American soybean and corn exports. There has been a 30 
percent increase in the value of agricultural exports since 1994, and I 
am confident that we will continue to build on this progress under her 
leadership.
  Ambassador Barshefsky has been widely praised and supported by 
industry leader in many sectors of the economy. Alfred J. Stein, 
chairman of the Semiconductor Industry Association and VLSI Technology 
Inc., has stated that ``the President could not have found a more 
talented and dedicated envoy to represent the U.S. trade interest.'' 
John E. Pepper, Chairman of Procter and Gamble Company, has said that 
``Ambassador Barshefshy . . . represents U.S. trade interests in an 
aggressive yet diplomatic manner. The nation is fortunate to have [her] 
as our U.S. Trade Representative.'' Gary Hufbauer, a scholar at the 
Institute for International Economics, has described her as ``easily 
the most qualified, most knowledgeable person on trade law ever 
nominated to this post.''
  In my opinion, Ambassador Barshefsky's experience, knowledge and 
tenacity make her the best person for the job. She has my full support, 
and I urge my colleagues to support her nomination and the proposed 
waiver from the Lobbying Disclosure Act.
  The waiver is necessary because she performed a limited amount of 
work for Canadian interests while she was an international trade lawyer 
in private practice. Effective January 1, 1996, the Lobbying Disclosure 
Act bars anyone who previously represented a foreign government from 
being nominated for a senior USTR post. The Ambassador was exempted 
from this requirement during her service as Deputy USTR, and it is 
appropriate to ``grandfather'' her tenure as U.S. Trade Representative 
as well.
  The distinguished ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senator 
Hollings, is proposing an amendment to the waiver that I must 
reluctantly oppose. I have sympathy for the issue he raises and might 
well support his efforts under different circumstances. However, the 
leadership of the body has expressed its firm opposition to Senator 
Hollings' legislation, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman 
Archer has indicated that he will seek to have any bill including the 
language ``blue-slipped'', or sent back to the Senate, on the grounds 
that it would constitute a revenue measure that must originate in the 
House.
  For these reasons, adoption by the Senate of the Hollings amendment 
would almost certainly delay Ambassador Barshefsky's nomination for an 
unacceptably long time. The Senate has a responsibility to approve the 
President's Cabinet nominees as expeditiously as possible. Ambassador 
Barshefsky is a particularly fine choice, and, in my view, the Senate 
should not take any action that would delay her confirmation further. 
Accordingly, I must ask my colleagues to vote no on the amendment of 
the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.
  Again, Mr. President, let me urge all Senators who support the 
nomination

[[Page S1970]]

to support the joint resolution waiver to give Ambassador Barshefsky 
the kind of bipartisan support that her record, that her ability, that 
her intellect, and that her potential demand.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to table the Hollings amendment, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Arizona to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from South Carolina. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith, Gordon H.
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--16

     Ashcroft
     Biden
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Craig
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kempthorne
     Smith, Bob
     Snowe
     Wellstone
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 19) was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the joint resolution for 
the third time.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order. There 
are 2 minutes equally divided.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, before the Senate votes on Senate Joint 
Resolution 5, I want to reiterate the importance of passing this 
waiver. The waiver is essential.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is correct. Senators 
will take their conversations to the cloakroom.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. The waiver is essential to ensure that the President is 
able to appoint this capable nominee to the post of USTR.
  I want to make just two points. First, when the Lobbying Disclosure 
Act was passed, Ambassador Barshefsky was serving as Deputy USTR. As 
such, the act expressly did not apply to her in that position.
  Second, the Ambassador never lobbied the U.S. Government on behalf of 
a foreign government or foreign political party.
  Under these circumstances, I strongly feel that passage of the waiver 
is appropriate to assure the appointment of Ambassador Barshefsky as 
USTR.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York will suspend. The 
Senate will please come to order.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, just to supplement the chairman's 
remarks, I would like to point out that he and I have received a letter 
today from Charles F.C. Ruff, Counsel to the President, stating:

       Because the President strongly desires to appoint Charlene 
     Barshefsky as USTR and in order to ensure the absolute 
     propriety, without question, of her appointment, President 
     Clinton will not appoint Ambassador Barshefsky until S.J. 
     Res. 5 has been enacted.

  I yield the floor and thank the Chair.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced, yeas 98, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith, Bob
     Smith, Gordon H.
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Allard
     Lott
       
  The joint resolution (S. J. Res. 5) was passed.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The joint resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 5

       Whereas paragraph (3) of section 141(b) of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171(b)(3)) became effective on January 1, 
     1996, and provides certain limitations with respect to the 
     appointment of the United States Trade Representative and 
     Deputy United States Trade Representatives;
       Whereas paragraph (3) of section 141(b) of the Trade Act of 
     1974 does not apply to any individual who was serving as the 
     United States Trade Representative or Deputy United States 
     Trade Representative on the effective date of such paragraph 
     (3) and who continued to serve in that position;
       Whereas Charlene Barshefsky was appointed Deputy United 
     States Trade Representative on May 28, 1993, with the advice 
     and consent of the Senate, and was serving in that position 
     on January 1, 1996;
       Whereas paragraph (3) of section 141(b) of the Trade Act of 
     1974 does not apply to Charlene Barshefsky in her capacity as 
     Deputy United States Trade Representative; and
       Whereas in light of the foregoing, it is appropriate to 
     continue to waive the provisions of paragraph (3) of section 
     141(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the 
     appointment of Charlene Barshefsky as the United States Trade 
     Representative: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3) of section 
     141(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171(b)(3)) or any 
     other advice and consent of the Senate, is authorized to 
     appoint Charlene Barshefsky as the United States Trade 
     Representative.

  Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________