[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 155 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12037-S12038]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                      FAST-TRACK TRADE LEGISLATION

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, during the debate over the North 
American Free Trade Agreement, I quoted President Thomas Jefferson who 
wrote, in 1785, to his fellow Virginian, James Monroe: ``I would say to 
every nation on earth, by treaty, your people shall trade freely with 
us, and ours with you.''
  In that same spirit, the 103d Congress of the United States passed 
the North American Free Trade Agreement and the nations of Canada, the 
United States, and Mexico began to open their borders. The resulting 
rising tide has already begun to lift the economic well-being of all 
Americans.
  We now begin a similar debate over the President's request for fast-
track trade negotiating authority. This gives me another opportunity to 
emphasize my commitment to free and open trade and pledge that I will 
work hard to enact the President's request. I am pleased that the 
proposal coming from the Finance Committee has attracted such broad 
bipartisan support.
  My colleagues need to understand how important fast track is. Fast 
track provides that Congress will consider trade agreements within 
mandatory deadlines, with limited debate and without amendment. Its 
power has been held by every President for over 20 years, both 
Republicans and Democrats.
  In his book, ``American Trade Politics,'' Professor I.M. Destler, 
noted that fast track rose from Congress' natural inclination to shift 
responsibility for negotiating liberal trade agreements to the 
President while still maintaining its constitutional authority over 
foreign commerce.

       By delegating responsibility to the executive and by 
     helping fashion a system that protected legislators from one-
     sided restrictive pressures, Congress made it possible for 
     successive presidents to maintain and expand the liberal 
     trade order.

  In other words, the fast-track mechanism is the result of years of 
practical experience by our predecessors. And from it, the United 
States has been a leader in opening markets throughout the world. 
Implementation of the Uruguay round, establishment of the World Trade 
Organization, and unification of the markets of NAFTA countries are 
just a few of the success stories arising from the grant of fast-track 
authority to the President.
  Unfortunately, far too many Americans have been misled into believing 
that free trade agreements are bad for the working men and women of our 
country. A late July NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll which simply 
asked if you would support fast track to negotiate more free trade 
agreements, a full 61 percent said ``No.'' But these figures are 
beginning to change.
  For too long, those who would build walls around our borders have 
pointed to the isolated cases of job disruptions to argue that trade 
only means job loss. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky testified recently how in 
our booming economy more than 11 million Americans now work in jobs 
supported by exports and that these jobs pay 13 to 16 percent above the 
national average wage. Exports have increased dramatically across the 
country with 47 of 50 States registering significant export growth over 
the last 4 years.
  Exports from California are up 45 percent, Michigan--68 percent, 
Illinois--64 percent, Ohio--42 percent, Texas--40 percent, Nebraska--54 
percent, North Dakota--76 percent, and Montana--52 percent. Exports 
from Florida, Rhode Island, Louisiana, and West Virginia have increased 
more than 30 percent. States from New York to Utah also have posted 
double digit increases.
  Instead of the giant sucking sound warned by many opponents of free 
trade, one of the first consequences of NAFTA was the swift relocation 
of some auto plants from Mexico to the United States.
  In my home State, increased trade has resulted in an enormous growth 
in exports and increased wealth for Arizona families. We exported goods 
totaling $10.5 billion in 1996, up 93 percent from 1992. Total exports 
from Arizona to NAFTA countries alone increased by 52 percent between 
1993 and 1996. Even exports to the European Union, which is not a 
member of NAFTA, increased 54 percent during this period.
  These increases would be meaningless but for one important economic 
truth: exports mean jobs. Today, the unemployment rate is at one of the 
lowest points in the last 20 years. An article in the Wall Street 
Journal about job growth in the St. Louis area and around the Nation 
stated:

       . . . here . . ., it is evident that, with a buoyant 
     economy slashing unemployment to a quarter-century low and 
     U.S. exports booming, Mr. Clinton will surely win by the time 
     the issue is resolved this fall . . .

  The article goes on:


[[Page S12038]]


       In the St. Louis area alone, more than 1,200 companies are 
     now exporting, up from 600 five years ago . . .
       . . . as more companies flourish by exporting, a silent 
     majority favoring more trade is forming in much of the 
     country. One recent poll found 78% of respondents favoring 
     expanded trade ``on a reciprocal basis.''

  Without fast track legislation, we have missed a number of 
opportunities to be involved in trade agreements throughout the world. 
The Southern Cone Common Market, known as MERCOSUR, is expanding to set 
up a regional trade bloc that will not include the United States. The 
Government of Chile has already concluded trade agreements with Canada 
and Mexico. In Asia, ASEAN is setting up a free trade area without 
United States' participation. The EU has begun to set up agreements in 
the Western Hemisphere, and is currently negotiating trade agreements 
with Chile and Mexico.
  Despite these missed opportunities, the United States can still 
continue its pre-eminent leadership role on the world economic stage. 
We need to complete the negotiations on Chile's accession to NAFTA, to 
begin building the Free Trade Area for the Americas, and to pursue the 
long-term commitment to eliminate barriers to trade with other Asia 
Pacific nations in the Asia Pacific economic cooperation forum. Some 
Members of Congress have even proposed negotiating free trade 
agreements with other trading partners, such as the European Union or 
Sub-Saharan African countries.
  The Clinton administration has noted that future multilateral 
negotiations may also require congressional implementation. For 
example, negotiations to further liberalize trade in services and 
agriculture and to establish new rules for subsidies are likely to 
begin by the year 2000. Moreover, the United States and other 
governments have expressed interest in pursuing multilateral 
negotiations on issues related to labor and environmental standards, 
competition policy, and rules for foreign investment. The success of 
these negotiations will hinge on the President's fast track authority.
  Finally, I think that it is important to recognize the message being 
sent by the recent decline in the world's stock markets, Those who 
argue that we should only look inward and forgo opportunities to open 
markets around the world fail to recognize that we are now moving 
toward a single world economy. Dramatic market declines in Hong Kong 
are felt on Wall Street, in South America, and in Europe. It is 
important that we not listen to the siren song of protectionism at this 
moment in history. Instead, our Nation must signal its support of free 
trade by supporting fast-track legislation. Fast track will promote 
open trade and create wealth around our planet. The benefits are 
obvious.
  The editorial pages of American newspapers have almost uniformly 
called for swift enactment of fast track. These newspapers observed 
long ago that delicate negotiations with foreign leaders go nowhere 
when these negotiations must first be approved by 535 congressional 
Secretaries of State.
  The Christian, Science Monitor states:

       There should be no doubt that much of the growing U.S. and 
     world prosperity in the past two decades--indeed in the past 
     half century--is a result of global trade expansion . . . 
     President Clinton should press ahead decisively now. Benefits 
     outweigh drawbacks. History is on his side.

  The Washington Post says:

       Economies that are open to trade and foreign investment 
     grow more quickly and lift their populations out of poverty 
     more quickly than economies that are closed.

  The Journal of Commerce says:

       . . . the real issue is the unwieldy nature of negotiating 
     with each member of Congress, a situation that would 
     encourage foreign trading partners to hold back their best 
     offers knowing Congress could second-guess the deal later, 
     leading to delays and weaker trade policy.
       Mr. Clinton should directly and honestly address the fears 
     of average Americans and use the bully pulpit to explain how 
     global competition ultimately improves the U.S. competitive 
     position. Only then will Americans better understand why 
     their smart, innovative companies and hard-working people 
     stand to benefit globally from open markets and fast-track 
     authority.

  The Arizona Daily News-Sun correctly argues:

       . . . enterprise free of the bureaucratic costs of trade 
     ``quotas'' and tariffs only raise the cost of doing business 
     for American businesses selling to foreign markets and result 
     in higher prices to consumers. Capitalism is not a zero-sum 
     game.

  And, finally, USA Today states:

       Congressional dithering over trade agreements is the kiss 
     of death. Let the president negotiate.

  I could not agree more.
  The commonsense perception of the negative consequences of high 
tariffs was well understood by Americans who engaged in the great 
tariff debates of the last century. It was understood by many of our 
Founding Fathers, by committed free traders in the 19th century, and by 
supporters of free trade today who argue persistently that tariffs are 
unfair taxes on an already overtaxed public and an impediment to 
prosperity.
  There are, of course, other arguments at stake that transcend 
partisan economic values. Under the benefits of NAFTA, Mexico has moved 
dramatically away from statism, protectionism, and the reflexively 
anti-American, anticapitalist left wing policies that have kept Mexico 
so firmly rooted in the Third World. Had we rejected NAFTA and denied 
Mexico the benefits of enlightened engagement with the world, we may 
very well have provoked a return to those policies which are so 
inimical to our own interests.
  I have long argued that free trade agreements help promote democratic 
freedoms in countries around the world. Support for free trade, as 
exemplified by vote for fast-track authority, is another way to help 
ensure that many, many people are able to live in a free and prospering 
environment.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues not to reject this golden 
opportunity to solidify the global free trade regime that we have 
created. Instead of heeding the cries of protectionism and throwing our 
country down a path of eventual economic ruin, we should vote to 
continue prosperity from Wall Street to Main Street America.

                          ____________________