[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 150 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9860-H9862]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1530
           FAST TRACK NEGOTIATING AUTHORITY GOOD FOR AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooksey). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we are not only at the end of the 
legislative day, but the end of the legislative week, and the three 
most heard words over the next several hours all across the country 
will be ``trick or treat.''
  This is Halloween, and, as we think about those words, I would like 
to talk about an issue which some, unfortunately, believe may be a 
trick on the people of the United States of America, but in fact it is 
more than a very, very well-deserved and well-earned treat. I am 
talking about the issue that we will be voting on most likely 1 week 
from today, and that is whether or not we should be granting authority 
to the executive branch to proceed with negotiations in an attempt to 
open new markets, so that U.S. workers will be able to produce goods 
and services that can be exported into those new markets.
  Yes, it is called fast track, and I happen to believe that it is the 
right thing for the workers and the consumers of the United States of 
America and for workers and consumers throughout the world.
  My friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] was just talking about 
national security issues and the need for a missile defense system. I 
am a very strong supporter. As I said a few moments ago, I am proud to 
be I guess the 104th cosponsor of his legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue that we are going to be voting on next week is 
a very important national security issue as well. In fact, in many 
ways, it may be the most important national security vote that we face.
  The reason I say that is that the United States of America, as we all 
know, is the world's only complete superpower: Military, economically, 
and geopolitically. As such, we have tremendous responsibility as a 
nation.
  We are clearly the world's greatest exporter. Our Nation is involved 
in the issue of international trade in a way that is greater than any 
other nation on the face of the Earth. And what has happened over the 
past several years? Well, the technological changes that we have seen, 
many of those items which have been developed right here in the United 
States of America, have led the world to shrink.
  We are dealing with what is known as a global economy. In fact, in an 
era decades ago when it would take a steamship to get a message across 
the ocean, we obviously see instantaneous communication. I talk to 
constituents who now, based on developments just within the last week, 
are up at 2 o'clock in the morning monitoring the stock exchanges in 
Singapore, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and other parts of the Pacific rim. Why? 
Because whether we like it or not, we are living in a global economy 
today.
  I happen to like it, because I believe that this global economy has 
played a key role in allowing the United States of America to have 
clearly the highest standard of living on the face of the Earth.
  Now, what do we need to do as we look at the need to continue to 
remain competitive in this global economy? It is very important that we 
remain in the most potent position. The only way to do that, the only 
way for us to do that, is if we allow authority to begin negotiations 
to deal with a lot of these issues to proceed. That is why the Congress 
must grant this so-called fast track negotiating authority.
  It expired a few years ago. We have been trying to come to an 
agreement, and I am happy to say several weeks ago we did come to an 
agreement which allowed us to successfully address many of the concerns 
that have been raised over the past several years.
  Why is it that we need this? Well, if you look at the fact that in 
this global economy the world has access to our consumers, that, 
frankly, is a very good thing. It is a good thing because it has 
allowed consumers in the United States of America to purchase high 
quality products at the lowest possible price.
  But now what is it we need to do as we look at other parts of the 
world and

[[Page H9861]]

how we even strengthen our already strong economy? What we need to do 
is we need to break down barriers that exist in other countries 
throughout the world.
  A number of my colleagues have said to me in discussing this over the 
past several days, gosh, why don't those countries just unilaterally 
eliminate their tariff barriers? The fact is, if we look at where we 
are going on this issue, it does take a negotiating process. It does 
take a give-and-take. But the goal is to break down those barriers so 
that U.S. workers are going to be able to have new markets for their 
goods and services.
  So what needs to be done? We need to have the authority granted so 
that when negotiations start, our negotiators at the table will be in a 
similar position to the negotiators from other countries. And what does 
that mean? It means that when they negotiate an agreement to cut taxes, 
and a tariff is a tax, as they work for those tax cuts, those tariff 
reductions, they will be able to come back to the United States and say 
to the Congress, ``You can't renegotiate the agreement that we have 
struck, but you have the final say as to whether or not this is a good 
agreement.''
  The U.S. Congress can vote ``yes'' or ``no.'' If it is a bad 
agreement, I will be the first one to stand here and vote ``no.'' But 
if it is a good agreement, I will be leading the charge in favor of it, 
because a good agreement is one that will cut that tax, that tariff 
barrier, and create new opportunities for U.S. workers.
  So as we look at where we are headed, I think it is important to 
touch on the benefits of this global economy to us. In fact, everyone 
acknowledges that we have seen tremendous improvements in our economy. 
One of the major reasons has been through international trade.
  I am privileged to stand in this Chamber as a Representative from the 
State of California. In California, we are the gateway to the Pacific 
rim and Latin America, tremendous new emerging markets in both of those 
parts of the world. And, remember, with those emerging markets, what 
happens? We improve the living standards in those countries. So many of 
the issues that we face as problems here can be effectively addressed.
  I am referring, of course, to the hotly debated question of illegal 
immigration, of great concern to me and the people whom I represent in 
southern California. Many people who come into this country come 
illegally seeking economic opportunity. Well, if we can through greater 
international trade enhance the economist of our neighbors and other 
countries throughout the world, clearly we will create a disincentive 
for people to come to the United States simply seeking economic 
opportunity, as has been the case.
  In fact, today international trade represents nearly one-third of the 
gross domestic product in this country, $2.1 trillion, an amazing 
figure from international trade. In fact, 25 percent of all of the U.S. 
jobs today are related to international trade, and, in fact, they have 
wage rates that are 16 percent higher than those that are producing 
simply for domestic consumption.

  That is why I am so troubled when I turn on the television and see 
these advertisements that the AFL-CIO and other opponents to 
international trade agreements advertise. These advertisements are a 
clear misrepresentation, because as we gain new and greater markets for 
U.S. products, just based on the way things have gone, the wage rates 
for those union members will be 16 percent higher than it is for those 
members who are simply producing for domestic consumption here in the 
United States.
  We have today the lowest unemployment rate in three decades. It is 
4.9 percent. And, guess what? That 4.9 percent level of unemployment 
has gone down to that level following implementation of, again, the 
much-maligned North American Free Trade Agreement and the completion of 
the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. So as 
we have done that, we have been able to break down some barriers, and 
we have been able, as I said, to see 25 percent of the jobs in this 
country exist because of the fact that we have gained new markets.
  With this authority, we want to gain even more in new markets, 
because it will improve the standard of living here and in other parts 
of the world.
  I was mentioning the issue of our leadership role. Clearly the United 
States of America cannot cede that leadership role to other parts of 
the world, because we as a country have stood traditionally in a 
bipartisan way with Democrats and Republicans supporting this goal of 
breaking down barriers and trying to gain new markets and new 
opportunities for us.
  There are many people who have raised understandable concerns about 
the climate and the situation in other countries with which we would 
establish these agreements. People are understandably concerned about 
low wage rates in other countries. They are understandably concerned 
about the potential for low environmental standards.
  Well, I happen to believe that will, based on the empirical evidence 
we have seen, improve the standards of living in these countries, 
improve wage rates, improve environmental standards. Of course, look at 
our very strong economy. That has played a key role in allowing people 
to focus attention on making sure that we have a cleaner environment, 
and has allowed the American worker to focus on improvement of their 
plight. Getting wage rates up and improvements in their negotiations, 
in the same way as we proceed with international trade in these other 
countries, we will, through trade, be able to successfully improve 
those standards.
  One of the provisions in this fast track measure of which I am 
particularly proud is when it comes to the negotiating process we are 
not going to allow countries to engage in what is called the race to 
the bottom. We are not going to allow a country to intentionally lower 
their environmental standards or worker rights standards simply to 
distort trade.
  An example I use, just take for example if the Government of Chile, 
which is the country with which we hope to embark on a free trade 
agreement in the not-too-distant future after we put into place this 
fast track negotiating authority, if they were to lower their standards 
and say to the copper mining industry in Chile, for example, that you 
can dump sledge in the street, and it is being done to undercut the 
copper mining industry here in the State of Colorado in the United 
States, that is an issue that could go to a dispute resolution panel 
and could be addressed.
  So we do not allow under this agreement countries to simply reduce 
their standards as a way to distort trade. But the way to improve those 
standards, which we are all concerned about, is through greater 
exchange and greater trade. So I am very, very encouraged about that.
  There are many people who have raised concerns about the 
constitutional aspect of this, and clearly the use of fast track 
authority is the legislative branch, both the House and the Senate, 
exercising its rulemaking authority. Every trade bill needs to, as I 
said, be voted on and passed by a majority in both the House and the 
Senate and signed into law by the President. So we clearly do have a 
key role in dealing with these agreements.
  So I will say, Mr. Speaker, that this is, I know, a very 
controversial issue. It has created a great stir, and people over the 
next week are going to be talking about it. But I believe that it is a 
win-win-win-win-win situation. It is a win all the way around, because 
the idea of reducing taxes, reducing tariffs, has been a global desire 
now. It goes all the way back to 1947 when the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade was established. They were established with the goal 
of reducing tariff barriers. Now we have a great chance to do that.
  There are small businesses in California and in other parts of the 
country. I have been listening to our colleagues from both parties all 
across the country talking about how small businesses are involved in 
gaining access to new markets, and they want to be able to do more. 
They want to be able to do more.

                              {time}  1545

  As I listened to the kinds of proposals that have come forward to 
address some of the concerns, I think that those are positive, too, 
because I think there are some justifiable concerns.
  But, Mr. Speaker, as we look at the vote next week, if we were to 
make

[[Page H9862]]

what I think would be a horrible decision in this House and defeat the 
measure, we would basically be saying that the United States of America 
is no longer going to play the role as the world's strongest leader in 
the area of international trade. So it would be a grave mistake.
  This goal we have is a vision which has existed for a long period of 
time. I will say to my friend, the Speaker here, the Speaker pro 
tempore, he recalled with me just a little while ago that it was on 
November 7, 1979 when Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for 
President of the United States, and in that he talked about an accord 
that would see free trade going from the slopes of Alaska to Tierra del 
Fuego, ultimately seeing free trade among all the Americas.
  I had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to be in Argentina and 
Venezuela and Brazil on the trip that the President took. On that trip 
it was very clear that these countries are looking to the United States 
for the leadership role in the area of international trade. I am 
confident that the U.S. Congress will, with a great, great vision, look 
next Friday when we cast that vote towards doing it.
  One of the other things beyond this hemisphere happens to be dealing 
with some very specific areas that need to be addressed in a 
multilateral way with many other countries. Those areas include 
agriculture. We have had a very tough time in agriculture getting into 
a lot of new markets. Why? Because there are many countries that have 
had these tariff barriers and nontariff barriers which exist which have 
prevented the chance for exports to go into those countries.
  If we look at the issue of financial services, we all see that there 
are banks all over the United States with international names. 
Basically the world's financial services industry has access into the 
United States. Yet we, unfortunately, have been unable to negotiate 
agreements that will allow our financial services industry to expand in 
providing those products and services to consumers in other parts of 
the world. That is why we need to get this fast track authority 
through.
  One of the other very important items, again to my State and to all 
the other States, is this very amorphous issue called intellectual 
property rights. Intellectual property, what does that mean? Well, 
these are items that are developed through the intellect of people in 
that home country.
  We need to make sure that those rights are protected. In the area of 
pharmaceuticals, we have many very, very necessary drugs and other 
items that are created in the pharmaceutical industry. We need to make 
sure that the responsibility for those lies with those countries where 
they are developed, and that they get full credit and remuneration for 
them. That is why international property agreements need to be struck.
  I represent the Los Angeles area. The entertainment industry is very, 
very important to our State. In fact, if we look at the entertainment 
industry, well over 90 percent of the world's programming for the 
motion picture industry and the television programming comes from right 
here in the United States, and we are all aware of the fact that piracy 
has been a serious problem.
  We need to deal with negotiations on that kind of intellectual 
property violation that has existed. Guess what? We will not be able to 
deal with the negotiations for financial services, getting our 
financial institutions into new markets, we will not be able to deal 
with negotiations for agriculture, to gain new markets for agricultural 
products, and we will not be able to as successfully deal with 
intellectual property violations if we do not have fast track 
negotiating authority passed.
  So while there are many people out there who would like to blame all 
the ailments of society on international trade, nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope very much that the Speaker pro tempore and all of 
our colleagues will next week, when we face what I acknowledge will be 
a very tough vote here in this institution, that Members will join in 
supporting what is clearly the right thing to do as we remain the 
greatest Nation on the face of the earth.

                          ____________________