[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 151 (Monday, November 3, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S11583]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          FAST-TRACK AUTHORITY

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I feel very strongly that we should 
give the President fast-track authority before we adjourn. He needs 
fast-track authority. We are not saying what is going to be in the 
trade bill that comes after the fast-track authority.
  It is extremely important to remember that fast-track authority is 
something every President has had since 1974. There is absolutely 
nothing new in it. The idea that we would withhold from the President 
fast-track authority on the notion that only the Congress can negotiate 
trade agreements--Lord help us when it comes to the point where the 
Congress has to negotiate trade agreements. There are some trade 
agreements where we can put our imprimatur on that trade agreement, for 
example: NAFTA, which I voted against; GATT, which I voted for; Chile, 
which would be upcoming; or others.
  But let's understand that in virtually all cases the President could 
go ahead and negotiate, his people at the U.S. Trade Representative's 
office could go ahead and negotiate trade agreements, and what the 
Congress thinks or does not think does not really apply. We would, 
obviously, watch that, and in the Finance Committee we watch trade very 
closely.
  The whole notion of withholding from the President of the United 
States, in a highly visible action, withholding fast-track authority 
from the President of the United States, doing that in the Senate or in 
the House or both, is absolutely unthinkable in terms of good judgment, 
as far as I'm concerned.
  I can tell you in my own State of West Virginia which is not exactly 
located on either the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, that trade and exports 
are a tremendous part of our economy. We have tens of thousands of 
people who are working exclusively because of international trade. We 
need to be increasing that. We need to be opening up new markets not 
only as the State of West Virginia but also as a nation. There are 
about 11.5 million jobs in this country right now which are exclusively 
related to international trade. We ought to be pursuing that.
  One of the people that I work with was talking with somebody from the 
U.S. Trade Representative's office the other day and that person had 
just come back from a certain part of the world--I think, South 
America--and said that other countries are going ahead and making 
agreements and cutting deals on trade and that they are bypassing the 
United States because we are withholding fast-track authority. It is 
expired. It doesn't exist. We have to reauthorize it. We need to 
reauthorize it.
  Somehow, also, the idea that the United States exists all by 
ourselves in this world doesn't make sense anymore, much less the U.S. 
Senate being able to sit and determine what will happen in the world. I 
think the history of the last week and what has happened with the stock 
markets has shown that transactions are international, they are 
instantaneous, they are electronic, they depend enormously upon each 
country taking the maximum advantage of the comparative advantage which 
it has in terms of goods which it produces. The United States has an 
enormous comparative advantage. Not to take full advantage of that 
doesn't make any sense to me.
  Actually, it might interest some people to know that West Virginia, 
which is not thought of as an internationally related State, in fact, 
is. In terms of the proportion of the jobs in our State which are 
related to products which are exported internationally, only three or, 
maximum, four other States export more of what they produce 
proportionately than does the State of West Virginia. So here is a 
State in the middle of the Appalachian mountains--not just because of 
coal, not just because of steel, but because of many things--we are 
highly dependent on the international trade environment.
  Mr. President, I remember several years ago when fast track was still 
in existence. We had two votes. One was on something called NAFTA; the 
other was on something called GATT. We could have done neither of those 
unless we had first made sure that the President had fast-track 
authority, which he did. I happen to think NAFTA was a bad deal for the 
State of West Virginia and I think I have been proved correct. I would 
definitely vote again as I did then, which was to vote negatively.
  On the other hand, GATT was tremendously important to the State of 
West Virginia. As somebody who is interested in trade, I went to Geneva 
to work with some of the international trade folks where the GATT, the 
General Agreement on Tariff and Trade, was being negotiated. I worked 
on antidumping. That is central to West Virginia's steel industry. I 
worked on countervailing duties. That is central to America's trading 
interests. Also, circumvention. Most people don't know what 
circumvention is. Here is a good example. Sony television used to make 
all of its television sets in Japan, and then export them to Mexico 
with everything done but the front piece glass--not the tube that 
actually radiates the pictures but the front piece of glass. That would 
be added on in Mexico and then would be exported into the United States 
from Mexico, counting as a Mexican import. That is circumvention for 
the purposes of trade law. In the GATT we were able to stop that. So 
Sony had to build a plant in America, hiring 1,000 American workers, to 
do what they had previously done in an entirely different fashion.
  Trade law is important. Section 337 has everything to do with 
intellectual property protection. It is the future of our information 
technology that is at stake. So we could not even have negotiated the 
GATT agreement without fast track. I'm saying that the President of the 
United States and his team of negotiators ought to have the right to 
negotiate a critical trade agreement as they choose, but then we would 
have the right to either approve it or disapprove it according to how 
we felt. I think that is a perfectly reasonable relationship.
  The Congress, in a sense, we up or down the trade agreement, but we 
don't down the process through which the administration can get into 
the trade agreement. We don't simply say, ``fast track you are not 
going to have,'' so you can't begin to negotiate a trade agreement.
  I think that is totally counter to the purposes of international 
trade and frankly to the interests of my own State. So I hope that in 
the Senate and these coming days as we debate this issue that we would 
give the President of the United States the fast-track authority which 
President Reagan had, which President Ford had, which President Carter 
had, which President Bush had, and which President Bill Clinton ought 
to be able to have.
  I yield the floor and 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.




                          ____________________