[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.
____________________