[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 27 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1971-S1973]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page S1971]]



  NOMINATION OF CHARLENE BARSHEFSKY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO BE 
U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND 
                            PLENIPOTENTIARY

  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Charlene Barshefsky of 
the District of Columbia to be U.S. Trade Representative with the rank 
of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary.
  The Senate proceeded to consider the nomination.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of Charlene Barshefsky's 
nomination as the United States Trade Representative.
  I have scrutinized Ms. Barshefsky's nomination very carefully. During 
the time of her confirmation hearing before the Finance Committee, I 
submitted a list of 10 specific questions concerning her past work on 
behalf of the Canadian Government, her commitment to aggressively 
defending and advocating United States trade interests before all 
foreign parties, and her commitment to raising issues of interest to 
Maine before the Canadian Government, particularly with regard to 
Maine's long-running problems on potato trade. I ask unanimous consent 
that these questions and her responses be printed in the Record after 
my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Ms. SNOWE. My reason for investigating this nomination was simple: to 
make certain that this nominee could be counted on to defend United 
States. interests in the trade arena, and to ensure that her past legal 
work for Canadian entities would not in any way influence the exercise 
of her duties as United States Trade Representative.
  Ms. Barshefsky's written responses to my questions, and on her 
responses to the questions of other senators and the Finance Committee, 
indicate that her nomination does not pose any such problems.
  As has been widely reported, Ms. Barshefsky worked, while an attorney 
for a Washington, DC, law firm, for several Canadian entities. But as 
her responses to the Senate detail, this work amounted to a tiny 
fraction of the total over the course of her 18-year career as a trade 
attorney in private practice. In fact, Ms. Barshefsky has certified to 
me and to the Finance Committee that her work for all Canadian 
Government entities represents less than 1 percent of the total hours 
that she spent working while in private practice. Furthermore, Ms. 
Barshefsky states in her responses to me that she never lobbied the 
U.S. Government on behalf of any foreign government or political party.
  I also questioned Ms. Barshefsky closely regarding her commitment to 
defend American interests in the arena of international trade. Ms. 
Barshefsky's responses are unequivocal. She states that she will 
forcefully defend and advocate American business interests in all 
international trade disputes, negotiations, and discussions involving 
the United States. She states that she will aggressively pursue all 
effective remedies to unfair trade practices committed by other 
countries against American businesses. And she states that she will 
pursue the strict adherence to, and vigorous enforcement of, all United 
States trade laws.
  Ms. Barshefsky also specifically says that, if confirmed, she will 
ensure that the USTR's office raises the issues of concern to the U.S. 
potato industry during our bilateral meetings with Canada.
  In addition to her words on paper, we also have Ms. 
Barshefsky's track record. She served as Deputy U.S. Trade 
Representative from 1993 to 1996, and as Acting U.S. Trade 
Representative for the past year. Her experience in these positions has 
given us a body of work to evaluate, and a record upon which to judge 
whether Ms. Barshefsky means what she says. And from what I have seen 
in her performance of her duties in these positions, through my own 
dealings with her, and from what other Senators have said, I believe 
that her deeds will be consistent with her words after she is 
confirmed.

  I have spoken with and sought the assistance of Ms. Barshefsky on 
several occasions over the past year. In each instance, I have found 
Ms. Barshefsky to be responsive and cooperative. She displayed a 
genuine interest in the problems facing my constituents, and offered a 
number of options through which the administration could be of 
assistance.
  I think it is also instructive to look at the Canadian softwood 
lumber issue. Although Ms. Barshefsky had, while in private practice, 
represented Canadian interests on the countervailing duty case that the 
United States filed against Canada in 1991, she later served as the 
second-highest ranking trade negotiator in the United States Government 
and participated in the negotiation of a bilateral agreement approved 
in 1996 that curtails subsidized Canadian softwood imports into the 
United States. That agreement has restored a measure of fairness to the 
lumber trade between the United States and Canada. And we would not 
have successfully concluded the agreement without the strong support of 
our senior trade officials like Ms. Barshefsky because the Canadians 
were under no legal obligations to sign an agreement with us. The 
United States had lost a succession of binational dispute resolution 
panel decisions on the issue up to that point, and had no way to 
legally require Canada to negotiate.
  Mr. President, I was concerned when I first learned about some of Ms. 
Barshefsky's past work, but upon investigating this matter and 
questioning Ms. Barshefsky, I accept her assurances that this work will 
not influence her decisions and actions as the U.S. Trade 
Representative. And I am confident that she will defend and advocate 
American interests in the international trade arena, consistent with 
the policies of the Clinton administration. I cannot find anything in 
the record that compels opposition to Ms. Barshefsky's nomination, and 
I believe that she has earned the support of the Senate.

                               Exhibit 1

            Written Response to Questions from Senator Snowe


                       Canada/Journal of Commerce

       The Journal of Commerce reported on November 15, 1996, 
     that, as a lawyer in private practice, you were retained by 
     the Canadian federal government and the Government of Quebec 
     on issues involving trade with the U.S. in lumber and pork. 
     What was the specific nature of the services that you 
     provided on these governments on these issues, and at what 
     times did you provide these services?
       Following is the verbatim response provided to the Senate 
     Finance Committee Questionnaire Statement of Information for 
     Potential Nominees, Question C.6 on Potential Conflicts of 
     Interest:
       ``Before becoming the Deputy United States Trade 
     Representative in May of 1993, I worked for 18 years as a 
     lawyer with the Washington law form if Steptoe & Johnson. The 
     vast majority of my work during those 18 years was in the 
     international trade area, particularly in the area of trade 
     litigation, including antidumping, countervailing duty, 
     escape clause, and similar on-the-record litigations arising 
     under the U.S. trade laws. My representation of foreign 
     governments or foreign political parties was limited to 
     Canada, viz, the Government of Quebec and the Embassy of 
     Canada, which were disclosed at the time that I was confirmed 
     in 1993 to serve as Deputy United States Trade 
     Representative. At no time during the 18 years that I 
     practiced law did I ever lobby on behalf of any foreign 
     government or foreign political party.''
       With respect to the Government of Quebec, my work involved 
     providing guidance and legal drafting assistance to the 
     Steptoe & Johnson lawyers responsible for the client in 
     connection with on-the-record litigation in two trade cases: 
     1) the administrative reviews of countervailing duty orders 
     on Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Pork from Canada (hereinafter 
     Canadian Pork) and the appeal thereof to an FTA panel; and 2) 
     the petition filed under Section 302 of the Trade Act of 1974 
     by the G. Heilman Brewing Company (later jointed by Stroh's 
     Brewing Company) concerning Canadian beer practices 
     (hereinafter Canadian Beer). I did not meet with any U.S. 
     government officials or appear on behalf of Quebec in any 
     proceeding, nor did my name appear on any of the briefs or 
     submissions in any of the proceedings. With respect to 
     Canadian Beer, neither I nor the firm were involved in the 
     GATT Panel proceeding.
       My work related to the Government of Quebec began in 
     October of 1989 and ended in March 1991, almost six years 
     ago. My time on the Canadian Pork and Canadian Beer matters 
     totaled approximately 240 hours, which represented just over 
     0.50 percent of my work while in private practice.
       With respect to the Embassy of Canada, my former law firm 
     and I were retained by the Embassy to monitor developments in 
     the United States concerning a broad range of substantive 
     areas, including international trade. The contract with the 
     Embassy of Canada for this monitoring work stated that

[[Page S1972]]

     Steptoe & Johnson was ``to provide legal advice to the 
     Canadian Embassy, in Washington, D.C., on political, 
     legislative and regulatory developments in the United States 
     relating to trade and economic issues.'' The Embassy 
     explicitly prohibited lobbying on its behalf and I did not 
     lobby.
       We routinely reviewed developments in the international 
     trade area, which included administrative, legislative and 
     judicial actions on issues of relevance to the Embassy, 
     ranging from changes in U.S. trade law to investment 
     restrictions in various countries. I coordinated the work of 
     other lawyers and paralegals in the firm as well, and routed 
     to them pertinent materials for their use.
       Pursuant to the monitoring contract, the Embassy requested 
     that I also provide advice with respect to two specific trade 
     matters. First, I directed the preparation of memoranda on 
     the options and legal consequences if Canada were to 
     terminate its settlement agreement with the United States 
     involving softwood lumber, as well as the implications of 
     judicial, administrative and legislative developments in U.S. 
     trade law on possible future trade litigation in the event 
     that Canada decided to terminate the settlement agreement. I 
     did not recommend to the Embassy what course of action Canada 
     should take with respect to the lumber matter. At the time 
     that I directed this work, the settlement agreement was in 
     force; there was no pending trade litigation and there were 
     no negotiations on softwood lumber between the United States 
     and Canada. In fact, my work on the settlement agreement 
     ended several months before the countervailing duty 
     litigation on Softwood Lumber from Canada began.2
       Second, I reviewed certain draft composite texts prepared 
     by the Chairmen of the GATT working groups on antidumping and 
     countervailing duty law for circulation to all of the 
     approximately 117 countries that participated in the Uruguay 
     Round MTN. The Chairmen's drafts that I commented on were 
     prepared by the GATT Chairmen as an attempt to reflect the 
     consensus of GATT members. They were not U.S. texts. My 
     review of these draft texts involved comparative analyses of 
     the Chairmen's drafts with past GATT provisions, GATT 
     practice, prior Chairmen's drafts, and U.S. law, as 
     appropriate, and an evaluation of the potential impact of 
     these and alternative texts on U.S. law.
       My time spent on the MOU settlement agreement and MTN 
     matters totaled approximately 145 hours, or slightly more 
     than 0.30 percent of my work while in private practice. My 
     work on these two matters was done intermittently from May 
     1990 to December 1991, and ended more than five years ago.
       What other Canadian governments, business, industry groups, 
     or organizations have you represented on matters related to 
     trade with the United States? What was the specific nature of 
     the services that you provided to these entities, and at what 
     times did you provide these services?
       As indicated in response to question 1, I represented the 
     Canadian Forest Industries Council (``CFIC'') in the 
     countervailing duty litigation on Softwood Lumber from 
     Canada. CFIC is an unincorporated association comprised of 
     trade associations in the Canadian forest products sector, 
     private Canadian softwood lumber producers, Canadian 
     exporters of softwood lumber, and U.S. importers of softwood 
     lumber. The services provided included those required in 
     an on-the-record trade litigation, such as brief writing, 
     assistance with preparation of responses to Department of 
     Commerce questionnaires, and oral advocacy. I was retained 
     in October, 1991, and my involvement ended when I left my 
     former law firm, Steptoe & Johnson, in April, 1993.
       Were you ever retained by a Canadian entity to work on a 
     particular issue at a time when that entity was engaged in a 
     formal dispute resolution proceeding with the United States 
     related to that issue under trade agreements signed by the 
     United States and Canada? If so, what was the specific nature 
     of the work that you performed for that entity on that issue?
       See question 1 which describes all my work relating to 
     foreign governments. As indicated above, I was retained by 
     CFIC in the countervailing duty litigation on Softwood Lumber 
     from Canada.
       Were you ever retained by a Canadian entity at a time when 
     that entity was involved, either directly as a government, or 
     indirectly as an interest lobbying a Canadian Federal or 
     provincial government, in negotiations on bilateral and 
     multilateral trade agreements to which the United States was 
     a party? If so, can you please describe the specific nature 
     of that work?
       With respect to being retained directly by the Canadian 
     government, see response to question 1. I was never retained 
     by any client to lobby Canadian Federal or provincial 
     governments.
       Were you ever retained by the Canadian federal government, 
     a provincial government, or any other Canadian entity to 
     perform work related to the Uruguay Round negotiations of the 
     GATT, particularly as these negotiations related to the 
     United States? If so, can you please describe the specific 
     nature of this work?
       See response to question 1.
       (a) Do you think your past work in the private sector on 
     behalf of Canadian entities will in any way hamper your 
     ability to perform your duties as the U.S. Trade 
     Representative as those duties relate to Canada? (b) Do you 
     feel compelled to recuse yourself on any matters that come 
     before the U.S. Trade Representative's office on issues 
     related to Canada?
       (a). No.
       (b) No. However, I have recused myself from any particular 
     matter involving specific parties in which I served as 
     counsel on that matter while in private practice, unless I 
     have been authorized to participate in that matter under the 
     provisions of 5 C.F.R. 2635, Subpart E.
       Can you assure me and other senators that your past work on 
     behalf of any Canadian entity will not have any bearing on 
     the performance of your duties as the U.S. Trade 
     Representative?
       Yes, unequivocally.
       American businesses need a forceful, aggressive, and 
     indefatigable advocate in the position of U.S. Trade 
     Representative, particularly when dealing with intransigent 
     and unscrupulous governments like Canada's. (a) Do you intend 
     to forcefully defend and advocate American business interests 
     in all international trade disputes, negotiations, and 
     discussions involving the United States? (b) Will you 
     aggressively pursue all effective remedies to unfair trade 
     practices committed by other countries against American 
     businesses? (c) Will you, to the extent authorized in the 
     position of Trade Representative, pursue the strict adherence 
     to and vigorous enforcement of all U.S. trade laws?
       (a) Yes
       (b) Yes
       (c) Yes
       Do you intend to make full use of Sections 201, 202, and 
     203 of the Trade Act to assist American industries that are 
     suffering from injurious import surges?
       Sections 201, 202 and 203 are the so-called escape clause 
     or safeguards sections of our trade laws. These provisions 
     are administered primarily by the International Trade 
     Commission (ITC), not the USTR. The law permits an entity 
     that is representative of an industry, including a trade 
     association, firm, union or group of workers to petition the 
     ITC for relief. Alternatively, the President, USTR or House 
     Committee on Ways and Means or Senate Committee on Finance 
     may request the ITC to conduct an investigation. the ITC's 
     investigation is to ``determine whether an article is being 
     imported into the United States in such increased quantities 
     as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat 
     thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like 
     or directly competitive with the imported article.'' Once the 
     ITC makes an affirmative injury determination, the ITC then 
     recommends to the President certain actions to address the 
     injury to the domestic industry. USTR is also involved in 
     providing a recommendation to the President as to what course 
     of action would best assist an industry in adjusting to a 
     serge in imports. If confirmed as USTR, I would intend to 
     review all recommendations by the ITC to grant relief to an 
     injured industry in order to ensure that USTR provides the 
     President with the most considered recommendation possible 
     regarding remedy actions that might be taken.
       Based on our past discussions, I know that you are aware of 
     the long-running trade problems that the potato industry in 
     Maine and other states has had with Canada. If confirmed, do 
     you intend to make the satisfactory resolution of potato-
     related trade disputes with Canada a high-ranking and 
     continuous priority of the United States? Will you take steps 
     to ensure that this issue is prominently featured on the 
     agenda of any major bilateral trade discussions with Canada?
       As you know, in close consultation with the Maine potato 
     industry, I sent a formal request to Marcia Miller, Chairman 
     of the ITC, requesting a formal 332 investigation on 
     conditions of competition in the fresh and processed potato 
     industry. This investigation will focus on the factors 
     affecting trade between the United States and Canada. I 
     expect to receive this report by July 15. The report will 
     provide information on Canadian prices and costs of 
     production which may be useful to the Maine potato industry 
     and the U.S. government.
       I have become very familiar with this issue and will work 
     closely with you over the months ahead on finding ways to 
     address the concerns of this important industry. You can be 
     assured that we will continue to raise the issues of concern 
     for the Maine potato industry at our bilateral meetings with 
     Canada.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to support the 
nomination of Charlene Barshefsky to become the U.S. Trade 
Representative.
  Mr. President, one of the things I find most interesting about 
Charlene Barshefsky is that in many ways she is a study in 
contradiction. On the one hand, she is a tough-as-nails trade 
negotiator who has developed a reputation for bringing the most 
experienced and determined of opponents to their knees. On the other 
hand, she is a loving and supportive wife and mother who recognizes the 
importance of family and, despite having very important 
responsibilities, makes time for her children.
  Mrs. Barshefsky's tough negotiating strategy has earned her the 
nickname ``Stonewall'' from her colleagues, and ``Dragon Lady'' from 
the Japanese.

[[Page S1973]]

 This reputation, however, was not gained at the expense of attention 
to her children. It has been reported that she has been known to help 
her children with homework while on the telephone to Hong Kong and 
other far off places.
  Mr. President, I have had an opportunity to witness Mrs. Barshefsky's 
abilities first hand in the 1980's. At that time, a number of my 
colleagues and I fought to stop Chile from dumping Government 
subsidized copper on the world copper market potentially putting 
thousands of people in New Mexico and throughout the United States out 
of work. Although U.S. copper producers ran the most competitive mining 
operations in the world, Americans were loosing jobs because the 
Chilean Government was subsidizing its industry with Government 
revenues and development funds from the World Bank and the 
International Monetary Fund. Charlene Barshefsky was one of the primary 
people who worked to rectify this situation.
  Mrs. Barshefsky has successfully worked on numerous other trade 
related issues since then. She became the Deputy U.S. Trade 
Representative in May, 1993, and Acting Trade Representative in April, 
1996. She marshaled support for the Global Information Technology 
Agreement and successfully concluded negotiations on the Basic 
Telecommunications Services Agreement to expand telecommunications 
trade and facilitate the building of a global information 
infrastructure. She played a vital role in solving trade disputes with 
Japan and China. She fought to open markets for the U.S. agricultural 
industry, and is leading efforts to expand trade with Europe. In fact, 
its hard to find an area of trade where Mrs. Barshefsky has not been 
involved.
  Charlene Barshefsky's tenacity and skill as a trade negotiator is 
well know the world over. Her demonstrated ability to do an exceptional 
job, her reputation for being a supreme tactician and tough negotiator, 
and her ability to do all of this and still make time for her family 
makes her an ideal choice for this post. For these reasons and others, 
it gives me great pleasure to support Charlene Barshefsky's nomination.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to voice my strong support 
for the nomination of Charlene Barshefsky as U.S. Trade Representative. 
Ambassador Barshefsky has done an outstanding job as acting USTR since 
her appointment last April.
  I believe Ambassador Barshefsky is one of the best nominations 
President Clinton has made and am honored to have the opportunity to 
speak on her behalf. Charlene Barshefsky is an aggressive and 
articulate advocate of U.S. trade interests and has been very 
successful in defending U.S. business and agriculture throughout the 
world. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is vital to opening 
up trade markets to U.S. goods, and Charlene Barshefsky has proven 
herself to be very effective at doing just that.
  Ambassador Barshefsky understands that U.S. agriculture and industry 
can compete very effectively in the international market, but only if 
trade barriers are torn down. She has been relentless in her efforts to 
expand market access for U.S. exports and to promote U.S. trade 
interests abroad.
  I am particularly impressed with Ambassador Barshefsky's work on 
intellectual property rights. My State is home to the Nation's largest 
software producer and to many smaller software and video game 
companies. These businesses have faced devastating problems with the 
counterfeiting of their products overseas. Ambassador Barshefsky has 
been a leader in the fight to end such violations of U.S. intellectual 
property rights. Last year, she negotiated a tough deal with China. By 
threatening sanctions against $2 billion in Chinese exports to the 
United States, she was successful in forcing Beijing to crackdown on 
software counterfeiters. While intellectual property theft still 
occurs, Ambassador Barshefsky has made great strides in defending 
United States interests in Asia.
  She has also worked as a tough negotiator on Pacific Northwest wheat 
exports to China. As many of my colleagues know, China has, for the 
past 25 years, imposed arbitrary restrictions on the importation of 
wheat from the United States. The Chinese Government claims that 
Washington State wheat is infected by TCK Smut disease and therefore 
forbids its import into China for fear that the disease will spread to 
Chinese wheat. Unfortunately, their claim has no scientific basis. 
Ambassador Barshefsky has worked diligently to eliminate trade 
restrictions based on unsound science. Although her efforts have not 
yet been successful, she has been the strongest voice Washington state 
wheat growers have had in the administration for several years.
  Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of Charlene 
Barshefsky, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to confirm 
her as U.S. Trade Representative.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, once more, I strongly endorse the nomination 
of Ambassador Barshefsky. I urge my colleagues to vote for her. 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.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I do want to assert that she is 
extraordinary and will be plenipotentiary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Charlene Barshefsky, of the District of 
Columbia, to be U.S. Trade Representative, with the rank of Ambassador 
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary? On this question the yeas and nays 
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 27 Ex.]

                                YEAS--99

     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
     Lott
     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--1

       
     Allard
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  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.

                          ____________________