[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 126 (Friday, September 19, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9732-S9733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      TRADE NEGOTIATING AUTHORITY

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the 
administration's request for new trade negotiating authority.
  Now, any discussion of trade policy should begin not with talk about 
new agreements. It should begin with a review of the basic facts, and 
of what we need to change in the international trade system to create 
jobs, raise wages, guarantee fairness, and create opportunities for 
Americans.


                            THE BASIC FACTS

  So let's first look at the facts. We are enjoying what will soon be 
the longest period of economic growth in our history. Since 1992, our 
economy has grown from $6.5 to $8 trillion dollars. Inflation has 
fallen to 2 percent. We have added a net gain of more than 12 million 
jobs. And while from 1986 to 1993 real wages fell every year, since 
1994 real wages have risen every year.
  A lot of things go into that record. Research and development by 
companies and the Government. Deficit reduction from $290 billion in 
1992 to $36 billion before the recent budget agreement. Improved 
competitiveness. Most of all, hard work and sacrifice by ordinary 
people.
  But our trade policy in the past 4 years deserves some credit as 
well. Since 1993, Ambassador Mickey Kantor and now Ambassador 
Barshefsky, along with their staffs, have worked very hard, stood up 
for our workers and farmers, and achieved a great deal. And the result 
has been a nearly 50 percent jump in exports, from just over $600 
billion in 1992 to nearly $900 billion this year.


                           FAR FROM FINISHED

  That is a good record. But the work is far from finished.

[[Page S9733]]

  Foreign countries routinely discriminate against our farm products. 
We can do more in high technology, where our telecommunications, 
computer hardware, and software firms are tremendously competitive. 
Subsidies and state trading companies in foreign countries distort 
trade tremendously. And our trade deficit remains unacceptably high. So 
we need to keep working to fix these things.


                     NEED FOR NEGOTIATING AUTHORITY

  And the administration needs trade negotiating authority to do it. 
Granting negotiating authority--I do not call it ``fast track,'' 
because there is nothing fast about it--is a big step for Congress, but 
it is the right step. The fact is, big trade agreements are like base 
closing agreements. The best possible trade agreement will ask many 
different interests to give up a tariff, subsidy or other form of 
protection in exchange for an agreement that will help the entire 
country.
  So I believe the Senate should approve a trade negotiating authority 
bill. And the one proposed yesterday by the administration is, I 
believe, a good start. It sets five general trade policy objectives: 
increasing market access; reducing barriers to trade; strengthening 
international trade rules; fostering economic growth and full 
employment; and addressing labor, environmental and other areas 
directly related to trade.
  More specifically, the draft sets the following priorities: reducing 
tariff and non-tariff barriers; opening markets to services; protecting 
intellectual property; ensuring more transparency in international 
dispute settlement, which is extremely important to me; winning fairer 
investment rules, so countries no longer can force technology transfer 
or impose export requirements; and opening markets in agriculture. I am 
especially pleased by the inclusion of a specific negotiating objective 
of opening foreign markets to American farm products. The bill devotes 
appropriate attention to the problems we have with state trading 
enterprises like the boards which control grain trade in many of our 
trade competitors.
  Finally, promoting internationally recognized labor standards and 
environmentally sustainable development.


                       LABOR AND THE ENVIRONMENT

  Let me talk briefly about this last issue. This has become a source 
of controversy for reasons that I don't quite understand.
  Since 1947 we have concluded five rounds of GATT. More recently, we 
have passed three so-called free trade agreements, the Information 
Technology Agreement, the Agreement on Basic Telecommunications and 
hundreds of other sectoral and bilateral agreements on trade issues. As 
a result, tariffs are lower, quotas have shrunk in number and scope, 
and other formal trade barriers have diminished.
  As these agreements go into effect, we quite logically find that 
other policies--intellectual property enforcement, antitrust policy, 
subsidies, rule of law, transparency, technical standards, Government 
procurement, labor regulations, and environmental law enforcement all 
have some impact on trade.
  Our trade policy should deal with these issues, and it does. 
Intellectual property is a top priority, as well it should be. 
Government procurement and subsidies are as well. To rule out labor and 
environmental standards is simply to make an arbitrary, ideological 
judgment that these are almost the only forms of policy whose trade 
effects we will refuse to recognize.
  That does not mean treating them the same in all trade agreements. 
The trade agreement with Mexico, for example, was a unique case. There 
we negotiated an agreement with a developing country, with which we 
shared a long border and in which we had existing experience with a 
free trade arrangement--the maquiladora program--which had created very 
obvious and serious labor and environmental problems. So in my opinion, 
that agreement required pretty strict labor and environmental side 
agreements.
  That is not necessarily true in all other agreements. We should look 
them over case by case. Some very important agreements authorized by 
this negotiating authority bill--for example, agreements on services, 
intellectual property and state trading companies in agriculture--
probably don't require labor and environmental provisions at all. But 
it is simply wrong and unfair to American workers and companies to say 
that we should never consider these issues. And I believe that on the 
whole, the administration proposal strikes a reasonable balance by 
calling for negotiations on labor and environmental issues directly 
related to trade.


                     IMPROVING EXISTING AGREEMENTS

  In one area, however, I think the proposal needs some additions.
  That is, I consider it at least as important to enforce and improve 
existing trade agreements as to negotiate new ones. We now have a wide 
and complex web of agreements. Some work well. Others do not. Still 
others are bad agreements that ought to be improved or redone.
  Let me offer an example. Ambassador Barshefsky recently scored a 
major success by opening Canada's market to our barley. That is a very 
good thing; but it also shows that NAFTA and the United States-Canada 
Free Trade Agreement are not perfect. They can be improved, and they 
should be. Likewise, the Uruguay round should have eliminated Japan's 
tariffs on wood products, but did not.
  Thus I think we should also include language that reflects the 
importance of enforcing existing agreements and improving the ones we 
already have. And I hope to work with the administration to include 
such language.


                NEGOTIATING AUTHORITY VERSUS AGREEMENTS

  Finally, we should not confuse negotiating authority with actual 
agreements. By passing trade negotiating authority, we do not sign 
blank checks. I expect that the Congress and the public will be fully 
consulted as we decide which agreements to pursue,; and then as we 
negotiate those agreements. And we have the right to disapprove trade 
agreements that do not meet the standards they should. So by endorsing 
new negotiating authority, I do not promise support for any particular 
agreement.
  To sum up, the country needs a tough and aggressive trade policy in 
the years to come. And the President needs negotiating authority for 
that policy. I support the effort and I hope the Senate will do so as 
well.

                          ____________________