[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 155 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11910-S11912]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FAST-TRACK LEGISLATION

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in the life of a country, as in the life 
of an individual, there are times when we must choose between moving 
forward and standing still. Our trade policy is at just such a 
crossroads: We must decide whether to help promote freer trade and more 
open markets or try to preserve the status quo.
  As we confront this issue, we must recognize that the world is 
changing and that even an economic superpower can do no more than 
postpone the inevitable. Our resolution of this issue will determine 
whether the United States continues to move forward on a wave of 
export-driven growth or risks permitting other economies to leave us 
behind. I believe it is time to stand behind our commitment to free 
trade and work to bring other countries into open trading relationships 
that will mean jobs and prosperity for our citizens in the century 
ahead. That is why, Mr. President, I have decided to support the fast 
track legislation.
  In developing my position on this legislation, I have been guided by 
one overriding consideration - will its enactment improve the lives of 
the people of Maine? Will it mean more customers for Maine businesses? 
Will it mean more opportunities for Maine entrepreneurs? And most 
important, will it mean more jobs for Maine workers? While free trade 
is not without problems, I firmly believe that the long-term answer to 
all of these questions is yes.
  International trade is an increasingly critical part of Maine's 
economy. In 1996, for example, my State exported more than 1.2 billion 
dollars worth of goods. Considering both the direct and indirect 
impact, those exports translated into 13,500 Maine jobs.
  But this export-led growth is just the beginning. I believe the 
people of Maine have the ingenuity, the drive, and the work ethic to 
flourish in a world of freer trade and more open markets for U.S. 
goods. From successful retailers like L.L. Bean, to manufacturers like 
Pratt & Whitney, to financial service companies like UNUM, to high-
technology companies like Portland's ABB, to paper mills throughout my 
State, Maine enterprises have proven that they can compete in a global 
economy. These companies recognize that much of their future revenue 
and job growth will come from serving customers beyond our borders.
  This is well understood in Maine. The United Paperworkers 
International Union has pressed the administration to negotiate 
reductions in European tariffs to help open foreign markets to the 
products its members make in Maine and elsewhere and to generate more 
export-related jobs. As Prof. Charles Colgan of the University of 
Southern Maine, a noted trade expert, stated in a recent letter to me, 
``The . . . vote on Fast Track authority for the President to negotiate 
additional trade agreements is an important vote for Maine. 
International trade is an increasingly vital part of the Maine economy. 
. . .''
  Perhaps the clearest reason to support fast-track authority was set 
forth in a letter from the State of Maine's director of International 
Trade, who wrote as follows: ``I simply feel that our best hopes for 
long-term economic prosperity here in Maine lie in creating 
international opportunities for our people, and not in limiting our 
access to new and emerging economies. However, well-intentioned, 
restricting our ability to trade will never create new jobs for Maine 
people.''
  Mr. President, I said earlier that we face the decision of whether to 
move forward. But in reality, the world will change with or without us, 
and thus, the real question is not whether we move forward, but whether 
we move forward wisely. That is the standard against which we should 
judge our trade policy, and against which we should judge this 
legislation. To me, this means that our trade strategy must meet three 
tests.
  First, since some citizens may be temporarily disadvantaged--through 
no fault of their own--by the changes freer trade can bring, we must 
assist them to adjust to changed conditions. Second, we must ensure 
that free trade is genuinely free, for that is what ``fair trade'' 
really means: If we do not insist that other countries open their 
markets to fair competition from U.S. goods, the system will collapse. 
Third, as we give the President the authority to negotiate trade 
agreements, we must preserve an appropriate role for Congress in this 
vital area of national policy.
  After weeks of studying this issue, listening to my constituents, 
and consulting with U.S. trade officials, it has become clear to me 
that the renewal of fast-track authority meets my three criteria and is 
very much in the best interests of my country and my State.

  First, while the rising economic tide that comes from free trade 
ultimately lifts all boats, it may impose costs upon some of our 
citizens in the short run. For this reason, I was greatly encouraged by 
the President's promise to expand Trade Adjustment Assistance 
programs--and to expand them to include not only workers directly 
affected by trade adjustments but also workers in businesses supplying 
affected companies. This change should prove particularly beneficial to 
small businesses in Maine and elsewhere.
  Second, I am pleased to have received assurances from the office of 
the U.S. Trade Representative that they share some of the important 
concerns of Maine's citizens with regard to ensuring that trade is 
really free. More specifically, Ambassador Barshefsky has made clear to 
me in writing that she regards Canada's bulk easement rules on potato 
imports to be an unfair trade barrier that must be pursued with the 
Canadian Government. Ambassador Barshefsky has committed to me that she 
will begin bilateral talks with the Canadian Government, beginning no 
later than March 1998. In addition, Ambassador Barshefsky has assured 
me that she views Canadian potato subsidies as a very serious matter 
that also must be addressed. Having established open markets as the 
norm, our trade officials must work--and, I have been assured, are 
working--to ensure that foreign governments keep their promises.
  Furthermore, I want to emphasize that passage of this legislation 
will not in any way hinder the ability of an industry to bring 
challenges under current trade laws against unfair trade practices, 
such as subsidies provided by foreign governments. Members of the 
farmed salmon industry in Maine have brought such a case. They seek 
relief from the adverse effects of dumping and subsidization, and of 
unequal conditions of competition, which give their Chilean competitors 
an unfair and illegal advantage.
  It was only after I became satisfied that fast track would not 
negatively affect the Maine salmon industry or its ability to pursue 
its legitimate grievances under current law that I decided to support 
this legislation. As a representative of the salmon industry recently 
advised me, what is most critical to them is ``the preservation of 
effective remedies under existing law and their vigorous enforcement.'' 
This legislation not only preserves existing remedies but also has as 
one of its objectives the pursuit of illegal activities by other 
nations. Thus, it recognizes that free trade is not achieved by the 
stroke of a pen on an agreement but rather by a commitment to the 
vigorous enforcement of our trade laws.
  Third, this bill carefully addresses the need to preserve the proper 
balance of powers and responsibilities within our Government. While it 
restricts Congress' power to amend the terms of trade agreements, it 
maintains our right to reject them. Indeed, it goes farther than any 
prior fast-track legislation to protect Congressional prerogatives. For 
example, it limits the application of the fast track to agreements 
which advance specifically enumerated negotiating objectives set out in 
the bill, which preserves our ultimate authority to set the goals of 
U.S. trade policy.

[[Page S11911]]

  Moreover, the Senate version of the legislation contains more 
elaborate procedures than ever before to ensure that Congress is 
consulted at every step as the President negotiates trade agreements. 
The President must consult with or notify the relevant committees--or 
Congress as a whole--on at least five different occasions during the 
process, even before Congress begins drafting an agreement's 
implementing legislation. These requirements guarantee that at all 
times we will be fully informed of the progress of ongoing trade talks.
  Most significantly, unlike past fast-track legislation, S. 1269 
permits congressional disapproval of a trade agreement long before the 
stage of final ratification. After the President notifies Congress of 
his intent to negotiate a specific agreement, the Senate Finance 
Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee may vote to 
``disapprove'' the idea--thus removing it from the fast-track process 
and making it subject to ordinary amendment. Under this legislation, 
what Congress gives to the President it may also take away. In short, 
the bill allows America to move more quickly in a rapidly changing 
world, while making Congress more of a real partner in the negotiation 
of trade agreements.
  The United States is one of the principal engines of the world 
economy in large part because it has long been one of the most open 
trading economies in the world. Continued progress in global trade 
liberalization--bringing other countries up to our high standards of 
market openness--is vital if we are to remain in the global driver's 
seat in the next century.
  The road to free trade will not be without bumps, but it is a road I 
believe we must take, for at the end of that road will be a more 
prosperous Maine, a more prosperous America, and a more prosperous 
world. For that reason, I intend to vote for the fast-track 
legislation.
  At this point, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters 
from Ambassador Barshefsky, the Maine International Trade Center, Unum 
Insurance Co., Pratt & Whitney, and ABB Environmental Services be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, The United States 
           Trade Representative,
                                 Washington, DC, November 6, 1997.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: Thank you for sharing your concerns 
     regarding the need to create a fair and level playing field 
     for potato growers in Maine.
       I share your concerns regarding the need to address the 
     difficult trade issues facing potato growers in Maine. As a 
     result, I requested that the International Trade Commission 
     conduct a section 332 investigation on fresh and processed 
     potatoes, on an expedited basis, to provide the necessary 
     information to assess the terms of trade between U.S. and 
     Canadian growers and processors. The Commission issued its 
     report on July 18. We are now in the process of working with 
     industry to determine the next steps given the information 
     that was provided in the report.
       One specific concern you mentioned is Canada's regulations 
     governing interprovincial and import shipments of potatoes 
     for repackaging and processing. It is our understanding that 
     a processor intending to import bulk potatoes must obtain a 
     Ministerial Exemption (Easement) to the Fresh Fruit and 
     Vegetable Regulations under the Canada Agricultural Products 
     Act. Such an easement is only granted for the purposes of 
     importation if a shortage of potatoes exists in Canada. Our 
     exporters object to the apparent discriminatory and arbitrary 
     manner in which this system operates. I agree that this 
     unfair trade barrier should be addressed expeditiously and 
     will engage Canadian officials in bilateral talks on this 
     matter, beginning no later than March 1998. Please be assured 
     that I am committed to pursuing this matter until we reach a 
     fair resolution.
       The second concern you raised is Canadian subsidies, and in 
     specific, whether Canada is in compliance with its 
     international obligations with respect to certain programs 
     qualifying as ``green box'' support programs. I agree that a 
     review should be conducted to determine whether or not 
     certain Canadian subsidy programs now qualify as green box 
     programs. We, together with USDA, will work with industry to 
     determine which Canadian programs should be reviewed and will 
     pursue any exceptions that are found.
       It is my hope that this plan to address the trade concerns 
     of Maine's potato growers will indeed level the playing field 
     for Maine's potato growers.
           Sincerely,
     Charlene Barshefsky.
                                  ____



                             Maine International Trade Center,

                                   Portland, ME, November 6, 1997.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.

     Re Fast-Track Negotiating Authority.

       Dear Senator Collins: Thank you for your inquiry concerning 
     the potential impact of ``fast track'' trade pact negotiating 
     authority on Maine and Maine business. As Maine's Director of 
     International Trade, I am pleased to share my thoughts on 
     this important issue with you.
       Free trade agreements such as the US-Canada Free Trade 
     Agreement, NAFTA and Mercosur continue to be the subject of 
     considerable debate and, unfortunately, misleading 
     statistical analyses. Proponents and opponents alike are able 
     to point to economic data that supports various aspects of 
     their respective positions. Thus, although I am a strong 
     supporter of free trade, and therefore NAFTA and ``fast 
     track'' authority, it may be most helpful to provide you with 
     a broader analysis of the issue and impact of Maine than to 
     offer you raw data for which there will doubtless be a 
     flipside analysis.
       It is important to note at the outset, however, some 
     incontrovertible facts. US exports to Canada have grown by 
     118% (from $60.9 billion to $132 billion) since the enactment 
     of the US-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Maine's exports to 
     Canada have grown from $300 million in 1988 to $546 million 
     in 1996, an increase of 82%, in the same period.
       Maine's export to Mexico in 1993 (pre-NAFTA) were $18 
     million. In 1994, the first full year of NAFTA, Maine 
     exported $27 million of goods to Mexico. In 1995, following 
     the peso crisis, Maine's exports to Mexico declined to $14 
     million. In 1996, as Mexico's economy rebounded, Maine's 
     exports to Mexico rallied to $34 million. In short, Maine's 
     exports to Mexico have almost doubled since the passage of 
     NAFTA.
       Taken together, Maine's exports to Canada and Mexico have 
     grown from $472 million in 1994 to $582 million in 1996, an 
     increase of $110 million in three years. In my view, the 
     current improved condition of Maine's economy is attributable 
     in part not only to the continued strength of the US economy 
     generally but increased international commerce in particular. 
     The US Government estimates that for every $1 billion in 
     exports, 40,000 jobs are created. The message is clear.
       Opponents of fast track legislation and free trade 
     agreements generally cite the dangers of ``exporting jobs'' 
     to lower wage countries. This is a rational concern, and one 
     not to be dismissed. I believe, however, that market forces 
     will dictate in any case where a business owner will choose 
     to locate her manufacturing facilities, and as things stand 
     today there are already many lower wage environments that can 
     be haven to such activities, if that is a manufacturer's 
     primary consideration.
       I continue to have ultimate confidence in the 
     competitiveness of Maine's workers, products and services. 
     Our goods and services are highly competitive and desired 
     around the world. We have nothing to fear from enhanced 
     competition--and once the doors to new markets are open to 
     us, we can and do succeed. Our workers are second to none. 
     High quality, premium and value-added goods are being 
     produced in Maine today when many lower-cost markets are 
     available for the purpose. In short, we have nothing to fear 
     from world markets, so long as we recognize that we have to 
     continue to strive to be the very best.
       Erecting protectionist barriers will not insulate us from 
     the forces of competition that are at work in the world 
     today. We need access to other markets, just as we have been 
     liberal in granting access to our own. History teaches us 
     that the Maginot Line did nothing to prevent the advance of 
     unwelcome intruders. Similarly, creating impediments to 
     market entry will not protect us from larger competitive 
     forces that may have an adverse impact on our economy. We 
     need to embrace the current competitive environment and 
     succeed in it.
       Fast track authority will enable the President to conclude 
     trade agreements that can create vistas of opportunity for 
     Maine businesses. We need to have enough faith in our 
     leadership, and in the political process, to trust that our 
     concerns over environmental protection and job impact will be 
     represented at the negotiating table. The cold, hard truth is 
     that our competitors from around the globe are aggressively 
     pursuing trading relationships in countries and markets that 
     we cannot yet approach owing to trade barriers or other 
     impediments. If we dither, or if we engage in protracted 
     debate no matter how well-intentioned, we will be far behind 
     the curve--and that will in the short, medium and long-term 
     result in loss of opportunity for Maine businesses, and 
     impact our economic growth.
       I do not for a moment mean to minimize the potential for 
     adverse short-term impacts owing to the opening of new 
     markets. These are real concerns, although I believe history 
     has shown that our economy can flourish in a free trade 
     environment. I simply feel that our best hopes for long-term 
     economic prosperity here in Maine lie in creating 
     international opportunities for our people, and not in 
     limiting our access to new and emerging economies. However 
     well-intentioned, restricting our ability to trade will never 
     create new jobs for Maine people.

[[Page S11912]]

       I thank you for the opportunity to comment, and wish you 
     the very best in your deliberations. With best regards, I am.
           Very truly yours,
     Perry B. Newman,
       Director of International Trade, State of Maine and, 
     President, Maine International Trade Center.
                                  ____



                                             Unum Corporation,

                                   Portland, ME, October 30, 1997.
     Senator Susan M. Collins,
     Russell Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Susan: Earlier this year, Unum communicated support 
     for passage of fast track trade negotiating legislation. As 
     this issue moves forward in Congress, I wanted to write and 
     reiterate our support for passage of this legislation.
       Opening foreign markets has been critical for Unum in 
     several of our recent international expansions. Currently, 
     Unum has operations in the United Kingdom, Japan, Argentina, 
     Bermuda, France, and Germany, along with the United States 
     and Canada.
       We will continue to expand internationally as opportunities 
     present themselves. However, we have found that it is 
     imperative that our government be able to negotiate 
     aggressively with our trading partners in order to get the 
     fair and open access that we need to be competitive. Fast 
     track legislation gives our government the ability to 
     negotiate these kinds of trade agreements. As you weigh the 
     facts on this issue, I think you will see that this 
     legislation is a necessary tool for our government to be 
     successful in negotiating with foreign governments.
       If you would like any additional information about Unum's 
     international operations, I would be more than happy to 
     provide it. As fast track legislation is considered by the 
     Senate, I urge your support.
           Sincerely,
                                               Brian K. Atchinson,
     2nd Vice President, External Affairs.
                                  ____



                                              Pratt & Whitney,

                              North Berwick, ME, October 31, 1997.
     Senator Susan M. Collins,
     Senate Russell Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: The president's authority to 
     negotiate any major trade agreement has lapsed and must be 
     authorized by Congress. I am writing to tell you why it is 
     important to the people at Pratt & Whitney's North Berwick 
     plant, and United Technologies, to pass legislation known as 
     ``fast track'' authority this year.
       Pratt & Whitney's business success in the U.S. depends to a 
     significant degree on our ability to sell our products in 
     markets abroad. Our government's negotiators need fast track 
     authority to open markets, reduce tariffs and eliminate trade 
     barriers to U.S. products. Negotiators will not be taken 
     seriously if it is perceived that they do not have the 
     authority to conclude an agreement.
       Fast track is not a new concept, and it does not result in 
     us ``rushing into trade agreements''. It has been a procedure 
     used since 1974 and has been renewed many times by Congress. 
     Fast track does not remove Congress' involvement in trade 
     agreements because the legislation includes specific 
     negotiating objectives and a consultation mechanism whereby 
     the president is obligated to consult with Congress during 
     the negotiating of trade agreements. All fast track ensures 
     is that once an agreement is reached, with congressional 
     permission and consultation, it will not be amended after it 
     is signed.
       Why is fast track important to our economy? Because trade 
     creates and supports jobs in the U.S. and in Maine. The 
     opponents of fast track would have us halt our participation 
     in the global economy. That approach is the greatest threat 
     to jobs in the U.S., especially for companies like United 
     Technologies that export over $3 billion per year. We need 
     fast track to stay competitive, and maintain a strong 
     economy.
       I urge you to press for speedy consideration of the fast 
     track legislation in Congress this year.
           Sincerely,
                                                    R. E. Ponchak,
     General Manager.
                                  ____



                             ABB Environmental Services, Inc.,

                                    Portland, ME, October 7, 1997.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of ABB Inc., I am writing 
     to urge you to support renewing fast track authority for the 
     President. More than one third of the economic growth and 
     nearly 40 percent of the new jobs created since 1993 are 
     based on exports. Since only 4 percent of the world's 
     consumers reside in the U.S., future growth and job creation 
     will rely heavily on exports and the ability of the U.S. to 
     access global markets. In order for the U.S. to be able to 
     eliminate trade barriers and thus open foreign markets to 
     U.S. goods and services, the President must have the proper 
     authority to negotiate trade agreements from a position of 
     strength, where the U.S. will be able to maintain its place 
     as a world economic leader. Fast track will provide the 
     President with this authority.
       Fast track authority is especially important to ABB Inc. 
     Our operations in the U.S. are becoming increasingly reliant 
     on exports. So far, ABB's exports in 1997 have grown over 40 
     percent. The ability to gain greater access to markets all 
     over the world and especially in Latin America and Asia is 
     vital to the well-being of our company and employees. Fast 
     track authority will ensure that ABB's interests abroad, as 
     well as those of other U.S. companies, will be preserved.
       Every President since 1974 has had fast track trade 
     negotiating authority. Without fast track, the U.S. will be 
     at a competitive disadvantage by permitting other countries 
     to gain preferential market treatment at the expense of the 
     American worker. Since fast track authority expired in 1994, 
     more than twenty trade expansion agreements have been 
     negotiated without the U.S.
       Once again, I am requesting that you endorse fast track 
     negotiating authority for the President. Please help support 
     a strong American economy and jobs for the future by 
     supporting fast track.
           Sincerely,
                                                David P. Csintyan,
                                                   Office Manager.

  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not 
present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). 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.

                          ____________________