[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 157 (Sunday, November 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12236-S12239]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FAST-TRACK LEGISLATION

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, there has been a lot of debate on the 
floor over the last several days about fast-track authority, and a lot 
of it has run against my grain. I don't think it has been at a very 
high level. What I would like to do is respond to a few of the main 
arguments that have been used against it that I have heard from some of 
my colleagues about both the nature of fast-track authority and the 
need for fast-track authority.
  Before I begin I would like to say that West Virginia's economy 
depends and will continue to depend enormously on strong growth in its 
exports. So any vote which is taken which does not support the 
proposition of promoting exports from West Virginia is one that I would 
question. Indeed, the U.S. economy is moving very strongly forward. I 
don't believe myself that the growth will continue in West Virginia as 
strongly as it might have if fast track does not pass this Congress, if 
we do not give that authority to the President. West Virginia had $1.3 
billion in exports in 1996. That's about a 35-percent increase in 
exports since 1992. That is quite remarkable. West Virginia's specific 
exports to Japan, which is our second-largest export market, went up 
128 percent in 3 years. Just think about that, Mr. President--a 128 
percent in 3 years; increasing exports increases West Virginia--and 
that dramatic increase has been with just one country--Japan. And, in 
fact, that means West Virginia exports to Japan totaled about $116 
million in 1996, which is not a lot in some States, but it is a lot in 
West Virginia. U.S. exports increased by $125 billion last year alone--
a lot of this because of trade arrangements.
  One thing is undeniably true--denying the President fast-track 
authority will not create a single new job in West Virginia. Nobody can 
make that argument with a straight face. It won't save a single job 
either to deny the President fast-track authority. It will only hamper 
our ability to sell goods to new markets, which is what this is about, 
and hurt the growth of a critical sector of our economy, and one that I 
have personally been working on very hard over the last 10 to 15 years.
  I think most of the arguments about the revolutionary provisions of 
fast track are highly overstated, and highly dramatized. Fast-track 
authority isn't anything new. And, because it is a procedural 
mechanism, I don't think there is anything to be feared about it. I 
recognize that others don't think so. Some have good arguments. Most 
have rather poor arguments, I think. Fast track is a mechanism simply 
that helps the United States keep up with the changing world economy 
and deal with our trading partners in 21st century management.
  So, let me take a moment to respond to a few of the persistent 
arguments which are used against fast track. These are just a few of 
them.
  Is there sufficient congressional consultation accompanying fast-
track authority: Very big contentious deal. Right? We are ceding all of 
our authority to the President of the United

[[Page S12237]]

States. We will no longer be a Senate. We will just be a tool of the 
Presidency.
  That is ridiculous. Congressional consultation is required in order 
for the administration to have and to retain fast-track authority and 
it has been significantly strengthened, I would say powerfully 
strengthened, from what was required under the legislation granting the 
last fast-track authority in 1988. New requirements for the 
administration are imposed under this bill which the House, and some 
Democrats in particular, don't seem to have the guts to be able to vote 
for it. It has all been passed through the Senate Finance Committee in 
order to ensure the administration carefully coordinates and consults 
with Congress at every stage of the process. Listen to me on this.
  The 1988 act required that the President provide written notice to 
the Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee of 
bilateral trade agreements at least 60 days before providing notice to 
the Senate and the House of his intention to enter into an agreement--
and, remember, this is the last fast-track authority--and to consult 
the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee 
regarding the negotiations.
  The bill that we passed out of the Senate Finance Committee and which 
the Senate has voted by a vote of 69 to 31 to take up, the President to 
provide written notice to the Congress as a whole of his intention to 
begin multilateral and bilateral negotiations at least 90 days in 
advance.
  That notice, Mr. President, must specify the date the President 
intends to begin such negotiations, the specific objectives of the 
negotiations, and whether the President intends to negotiate a new 
agreement, or, on the other hand, to modify an old or existing 
agreement. Any failure of the President to provide notice can result in 
the introduction and consideration of a ``procedural disapproval 
resolution'' which would deny fast track for the trade agreement, if 
the resolution were approved.
  This bill also requires the President to consult with the Finance 
Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, and with other 
committees, before and after providing the notice of his intention to 
begin negotiations.
  Already we are in advance of where we were in 1988.
  The President must consult with all other committees that have any 
jurisdiction or participation in this matter that request consultations 
if a committee wants to be consulted. If it wants to be consulted, it 
can request consultation, and the President must consult with them in 
writing.
  In addition, the Senate Finance Committee's fast-track bill requires 
the President to consult with the private sector advisory committees 
established under the 1974 Trade Act, as the President deems it 
appropriate, before beginning negotiations. This consultation takes 
place before the trade negotiations have even begun.
  Before the President is permitted to enter into a trade agreement, 
the President must consult with the Senate Finance Committee, the House 
Ways and Means Committee, as well as other committees of jurisdiction 
over legislation involving subjects that would be affected by the trade 
agreement, in addition to the consultation requirements of the 1988 
act, which includes discussions about the nature of the agreement and a 
detailed assessment of how the agreement meets the objectives and 
purposes of the act.
  Now the Senate Finance Committee bill requires the President to 
consult the Congress on all matters related to the implementation of 
the agreement.
  Free trade agreement negotiations must include an overview of the 
macroeconomic environment of the countries with which the President 
intends to negotiate and a discussion of effects on exchange rates--on 
exchange rates. It is a good idea included in response to concerns 
raised by certain Members--and it is in the fast-track authority.
  These consultations must be continuous as negotiations of the trade 
bill are continuous. What additional requirements for consultation do 
the opponents of this want? Another new consultation requirement was 
added in response to Senate Members' concerns about side agreements 
that were entered into during previous free trade agreements, like 
NAFTA and the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement. The new 
requirement mandates the President consult with respect to any other 
agreement he has entered into, or intends to enter into with the 
countries party to the agreement.

  This would include all kinds of agreements: Formal side agreements, 
exchange of letters, and any preagreed interpretations of the 
provisions of a trade agreement entered into in conjunction with a 
trade agreement.
  Advisory committee reports are required.
  What provision of the extensive consultation requirements am I on? 
No. 7, No. 8? I have no idea what number I am on of all these new 
provisions which give strength to the congressional role in forging 
trade agreements.
  Advisory committee reports are required to be submitted not more than 
30 days after the President notifies Congress of his intention to enter 
into a trade agreement.
  I know going through this amount of detail sounds arcane. But I just 
want to in a sense ridicule the arguments that are being used that 
somehow we are ceding all power to the President. Is it the U.S. Senate 
which is important in this, or is it jobs for workers in West Virginia 
and across the country which are important in this? What comes first 
here?
  Further, the Senate Finance Committee fast-track bill requires the 
USTR to consult regularly, promptly, and closely with congressional 
advisors for trade policies and negotiations, and with the Senate 
Finance and House Ways and Means Committee whole membership, and to 
keep both the advisors and the committees fully informed every step of 
the way through the negotiations process.
  Ambassador Barshefsky is over there doing negotiating, which is 
really done in secrecy--most of it.
  No. 9. We have to be consulted on the progress of the negotiations of 
any trade agreement eligible for fast track so the Congress can 
evaluate the negotiations at each stage virtually at each hour.
  I do not know what more Members might require in the form of 
consultation.
  Because negotiations traditionally become most intense at the 
conclusion of the negotiation process, the Senate Finance Committee 
further expects that the USTR will enter into a formal agreement in the 
form of procedures similar to those agreed by the executive branch in 
1975 that will ensure that congressional advice and committee advice 
will be able to be fully taken into account as in the past.
  Again, this next provision must be the tenth or eleventh requirement 
for consultation----
  As a condition of fast track authority, the U.S. Trade Representative 
will commit to a set of procedures that afford Members and cleared 
staff--not just Members but cleared staff--with necessary documents, 
classified, or unclassified. They will have access to things such as 
cables, statements of executive branch position, and formal submission 
from other countries. The USTR staff will work with the Senate Finance 
Committee to set up a system of briefings for Members during these 
negotiations, and appropriate staff to be included in the final rounds 
of the trade negotiation agreement.
  And the President is required to notify Congress before initialing a 
trade agreement which might even be eligible for fast-track authority. 
He can't even put his initials on it before he consults with Congress. 
Once the agreement is initialed by the President, the President then 
has 60 days to provide the Congress with any and all changes required 
to U.S. law to implement the agreement.
  Well, I have another two pages on that, all of them, Mr. President, 
simply showing that the Senate has adequate consultation--the question 
is how much negotiating room the President has with all these 
consultation requirements. No problem with the Senate.
  Now, some people make this argument. Some argue fast-track authority 
is not needed to move trade agreements. It is absolutely true that 
there have been hundreds of trade-related agreements and declarations 
which the U.S. Trade Office has concluded during this administration. 
From January 1993 to just last month that has been the case.

[[Page S12238]]

  But, let me give my colleagues some examples of these many trade 
deals that the opponents of this bill point to to suggest that trade 
agreements continue to be made and that fast-track authority is not 
really necessary; in other words, you don't have fast track authority 
to have trade agreements. Well, a lot of these agreements which have 
been agreed to and negotiated are very peripheral in nature. One, a 
bilateral investment treaty with Albania. Great. And then an agreement 
regarding processed chicken quotas with Canada. A memorandum of 
understanding on trade in bananas with Costa Rica. Wonderful. A trade 
and intellectual property rights agreement with Estonia. Historic. An 
agreement on a temporary waiver of Hungary's WTO export subsidy 
schedule. Wow. Harmonized chemical tariffs with Japan. All right, 
that's good. An agreement on trade in textiles and textile products 
with Lesotho. Wonderful. And it goes on and on and on.
  I hope that my colleagues will agree that as important as having 
bilateral agreements with any given country may be--and some of the 
examples I listed have, in fact, real economic impact; they have real 
impact on important industries in my State and other States--not many 
of these agreements are major trade deals. That is my point. In fact, 
very few are major trade agreements in the sense they are not opening 
up new markets.
  Here rests my argument. What we are talking about is opening up new 
markets. What the opponents are talking about is totally removed and 
off base.
  I do not mean to say that negotiating with individual countries and 
establishing bilateral agreements isn't a very important part of 
improving the trade environment. These individual product or industry-
specific agreements with different countries do help improve U.S. 
trade. I have no doubt about that at all. But they do not make 
significant expansions in our export markets that America and West 
Virginia need desperately in order to improve.
  Ensuring that U.S. goods and services can be available on a level 
playing field to the 96 percent of consumers in this world who are not 
Americans happens to be very important. Trade agreements make sure that 
we have access to new markets under reasonable conditions. In our 
increasingly global world, that means we have to have multilateral 
agreements like GATT and the Uruguay round, and free trade agreements 
with areas like Latin America and Asia are needed. Why? Because they 
are growing enormously, and their middle class is growing and their 
ability to purchase goods is growing.
  An up-or-down vote on a multilateral trade agreement makes sense to 
me because it how we expand our markets. As the U.S. Trade 
Representative, Charlene Barshefsky, told the Finance Committee, in the 
two fastest growing regions of the world, Latin America and Asia, 
governments are seeking preferential trade agreements. ``They are 
forming relationships around us, rather than with us, and they are 
creating new exclusive trade alliances to the detriment of U.S. 
interests.''
  Then Ambassador Barshefsky goes on to say, ``In Latin America and 
Asia alone over 20 such agreements have been negotiated since 1992, all 
of them without us.''
  Well, I can't imagine that doesn't bother the opponents of fast 
track. I care about the effect of trade on jobs in my State. And there 
is plenty of protection for the Senate and the Congress in this fast-
track authority. You cannot negotiate a trade deal with 100 Members of 
the Senate and a foreign country or set of countries. It cannot be 
done. Fast track makes sense.
  Can you imagine people coming in and saying, well, we have to.
  What are other countries doing on trade agreements while the U.S. 
debates fast track? Where is the United States at a disadvantage if we 
don't pass fast track, as they may not in the House? Again, primarily 
due mostly to my own party.
  I have talked about the fact that major markets are negotiating trade 
agreements and the United States is not in the picture. Let's just look 
at the major world markets:
  No. 1, Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay have formed a common 
market called MERCOSUR. MERCOSUR has a GDP of about a $1 trillion and 
includes a population of 200 million people. It wants to expand its 
market to the rest of South America. The sheer numbers of people and 
dollars in this market makes it the largest economy in Latin America. 
MERCOSUR has agreements with Chile and Bolivia, and is talking with 
Colombia and Venezuela, in addition to Caribbean nations. The EU and 
MERCOSUR plan to complete a reciprocal agreement by 1999. We are on the 
outside of all that.
  No. 2, Latin American nations are meeting with members of the Central 
American Common Market [CARICOM] to discuss free trade negotiations.
  No. 3, Chile, with one of South America's leading economies has 
already signed agreements with Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, 
Granada, Venezuela, and MERCOSUR countries. That means Chile has a 
preferential trading relationship with every major trading country in 
our hemisphere except the United States. How do the opponents of fast 
track feel about that?
  There are seven members of the South Asian Association for Regional 
Cooperation [SARC]--Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, and 
Maldives--they have set 2001 as the date they would like to create a 
free-trade area. Right now, SARC is only 1 percent of world trade, but 
it has 20 percent of the world's population which means this is another 
important market to the United States in the future.
  I talked about Latin America earlier and want to underscore why that 
market is so important to our trading future. Projections are that 
Latin America will exceed Western Europe and Japan combined as an 
export market for the United States in the next decade--and that's 
under current conditions where tariff barriers average three to four 
times the average United States tariff. Put simply, Latin America is 
one of the largest emerging markets, of the 30 million people who join 
the middle class annually, three-fourths of those 309 million people 
are currently in emerging markets and low- and middle-income markets.
  I am almost at an end. The Asian Pacific Rim is our second fastest 
growing export market. Meanwhile, our industrial competitors continue 
to make agreements that put U.S. goods at a disadvantage. Canada has a 
new trade agreement with Chile. The EU is in a position to take better 
advantage of the transition economies of Central and Eastern Europe. 
The EU is also working on getting a free-trade agreement with MERCOSUR.
  China is zeroing in on Latin America and Japan is working on its ties 
to Asia and Latin America through closer commercial ties and a greater 
commercial presence.
  Mr. President, I simply make these remarks because I think it will be 
such high and deep folly if the House declines to vote on--or if 
voting, votes down--fast-track authority. I think some of the arguments 
made in this body have made it easier for Members of the House to say, 
``Look what so-and-so said in the U.S. Senate.''
  It is a question: Do we want to expand trade? Or do we want to just 
keep all inside of ourselves? This has been an age-old problem with the 
United States. We cycle back and forth from one view to another. This 
is the time to cycle for an expansionist trade point of view.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I had the floor, as I understand it, 
following the conclusion of Senator Rockefeller's remarks?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is correct. Under 
the previous order, the Senator from California is to be recognized.
  The Senator from California.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, might I ask unanimous consent--I have 
been waiting here for some time to speak for up to 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Following my remarks?
  Mr. SPECTER. No, at the present time. I have been here on the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have been waiting for at least 2 hours, on and off.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from 
California.
  Mr. SPECTER. May I inquire of the Senator from California how long 
she will be speaking?
  Mrs. BOXER. I would say about 15 minutes, I say to my friend.

[[Page S12239]]

  Mr. SPECTER. Then I ask unanimous consent that I might be recognized 
to speak up to 5 minutes at the conclusion of her remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, I may finish sooner 
than that, and I will endeavor to do so.

                          ____________________