[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 135 (Thursday, October 2, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1906-E1907]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FAST-TRACK--WHAT IS AT STAKE

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 30, 1997

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to my colleagues' 
attention my monthly newsletter on foreign affairs from September 1997 
entitled Fast-Track--What Is At Stake.
  I ask that this newsletter be printed in the Congressional Record.
  The newsletter follows:

                      Fast-Track--What Is At Stake

       Earlier this month, the President asked Congress to grant 
     him ``fast-track'' authority to negotiate trade agreements. 
     Under fast-track, Congress agrees to hold single, expedited 
     yes-or-no votes on trade agreements in exchange for extensive 
     input into the President's negotiating strategy. Congress 
     will vote on fast-track in the coming weeks.
       Much is at stake in this debate. Without fast-track, U.S. 
     trade policy will grind to a halt. Other countries will not 
     conclude trade deals with the President if Congress can later 
     revise them. Increased trade will create good jobs and raise 
     wages. It will also sustain our world leadership and achieve 
     key foreign policy objectives.
       Between 1974 and 1994 every President had fast-track 
     authority. They used it to achieve two major worldwide 
     agreements that cut trade barriers and boosted U.S. exports. 
     Earlier this year, the President nailed down agreements, 
     initiated before fast-track authority lapsed, that will cut 
     prices for international phone calls and eliminate barriers 
     to U.S. computer-related exports. U.S. markets are the most 
     open in the world, and trade agreements consistently require 
     other countries to do more than we do to lower trade 
     barriers--to our great advantage.
       U.S. prosperity increasingly depends on finding new foreign 
     markets for the things we make and grow. One of every eight 
     U.S. jobs is at least partly supported by exports. Ninety-six 
     percent of the world's consumers live outside the U.S., and 
     we need better access to these potential customers if we want 
     to preserve or increase our 20% share of the world's wealth. 
     Trade agreements give us that access. U.S. exports have 
     increased 80%, for example, in the products covered by the 24 
     agreements we have concluded with Japan since 1992.
       Consider what we lose without fast-track. Without fast-
     track, we won't be able to lead upcoming talks on reducing 
     trade barriers in agriculture and services, two sectors in 
     which we dominate world trade. Without fast-track, Europe and 
     Japan will secure preferential access to markets at our 
     expense. European and Japanese firms would be pleased if the 
     U.S. did not conclude trade agreements with Latin America and 
     Asia, because they want those markets for themselves. Without 
     fast-track, new deals in key sectors in which the U.S. leads 
     world industry--such as automobiles, energy equipment, and 
     medical technology--will remain out of reach.
       Without fast-track, foreign trade barriers that are hurting 
     American workers and farmers right now will remain in place. 
     Rules affecting the sale of our products overseas will be 
     written by others, not by us. Hundreds of thousands of 
     potential new jobs will not be created. But if we give the 
     President fast-track, he will have the power to combat trade 
     barriers--and each agreement he concludes will still have to 
     be separately approved by Congress.
       Critics of fast-track argue that U.S. jobs and wages are 
     hurt by low labor and environmental standards in other 
     countries. They want agreements to require our trading 
     partners to raise these standards. But fast-track critics 
     have not explained how we can persuade other governments to 
     sign such agreements. Countries are unlikely to change labor 
     and environmental policies simply for the opportunity to 
     trade more with us. There is a better way to help other 
     countries improve their labor and environmental standards: by 
     helping them grow, and for that we need increased trade and 
     fast-track.
       Fast-track is important not only for the U.S. economy, but 
     also for the achievement of key foreign policy objectives:
       Most countries in Latin America have embraced democracy and 
     adopted free-market economic policies. Increased trade with 
     the U.S. will stimulate growth, providing a payoff for 
     painful reforms. That will solidify democracy and enhance 
     U.S. influence.
       U.S.-led efforts to reduce trade barriers in the Asia-
     Pacific Economic Cooperation

[[Page E1907]]

     forum (APEC) will help maintain America's leadership role in 
     Asia. For our close friends in the region, APEC's most 
     important purpose is to keep the U.S. anchored in Asia.
       Better access to world markets is critical to the success 
     of economic and political reform in Eastern Europe, and to 
     the independence of the countries of the former Soviet Union.
       U.S.-led efforts to reduce trade barriers have contributed 
     to a dramatic increase in global prosperity since World War 
     II, reducing the potential for international conflict.
       Trade is an increasingly important dimension of 
     international relations. Continued U.S. trade leadership will 
     reinforce U.S. foreign policy leadership. A rejection of 
     fast-track will signal a retreat from our role as world 
     leader.
       Despite the power of these arguments, fast-track won't be 
     approved unless we address deep-seated concerns about the 
     impact of trade on the U.S. economy.
       First, we need to strengthen programs that help workers 
     adjust to foreign competition. Trade expansion benefits the 
     U.S. economy as a whole, but it does hurt some workers, 
     especially those with fewer skills. Better education and 
     training will do more to help U.S. workers than anything a 
     trade agreement can do about foreign labor practices.
       Second, the President must persuade Americans that if they 
     give him fast-track, he will use that authority 
     aggressively--to knock down foreign trade restrictions and 
     deliver agreements that increase good-paying jobs.
       Third, the President and Congress need to launch a national 
     dialogue on the importance of trade. We need to highlight the 
     advantages of trade: the jobs created by exports, and the 
     benefits of imports both to consumers and producers. We need 
     to explain that low productivity in developing countries 
     often neutralizes any competitive advantage provided by their 
     low wages. We need to document the competitiveness of U.S. 
     manufacturing and how American workers are being hurt by 
     recent trade agreements concluded without U.S. 
     participation--because of the absence of fast-track 
     authority.
       Fast-track will empower the President to open foreign 
     markets--to the benefit of the U.S. economy and U.S. foreign 
     policy. Without fast-track our economy's potential will be 
     unfulfilled, and our international leadership will be 
     diminished.

     

                          ____________________