[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 157 (Sunday, November 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S12240]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               FAST TRACK

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will begin on the question of fast 
track with a statement made by the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia saying that it would be disingenuous to believe that trade 
agreements would not be rewritten in the U.S. Senate. I say to my 
colleagues that I consider it unlikely that trade agreements would be 
rewritten in this body, considering how hard it is to get 51 votes 
against a committee report or against an administration position or 
that we might have the structure on amendments made so that it would 
require passage of a bill then subject to veto by the President and 
then subject to a two-thirds override. But if, in fact, trade 
agreements would be rewritten on the floor of the U.S. Senate or on the 
floor of the House of Representatives, then it might be something which 
is desirable.

  I oppose fast track, although I am not opposed to free-trade 
agreements, because I do favor such agreements and supported NAFTA, the 
North American Free-Trade Agreement, and GATT, notwithstanding very 
considerable constituent opposition in my own State. Being elected in 
Pennsylvania, with 12 million constituents, it is my view that I ought 
to have standing as a Senator to offer amendments, and because we have 
had a certain amount of wisdom coming from Members of Congress on 
issues of trade, which are matters of very, very considerable 
importance.
  I will analogize the activity of the Senate regarding trade 
agreements to what we do on treaties in general, where a two-thirds 
vote is required. If amendments could be offered to trade agreements, 
it could be of some substantial value to the President, and the 
executive branch in negotiating agreements with foreign powers saying, 
``Well, we understand your position, but you have to understand ours, 
and there are certain political realities in the U.S. Congress.''
  We have a variety of protocols where you have executive agreements 
which look very much like treaties which are not subject to 
ratification by the Senate. A very complicated agreement was entered 
into with North Korea which involved very substantial issues on nuclear 
power. That was the subject of a letter from the chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, the chairman of the Interior Committee and 
myself, in my capacity last year as chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee, asking for Senate action. So there are precedents for having 
the Senate exercise its judgment and I think we have some substantial 
judgment in the field.
  I recall very well in 1984, when the International Trade Commission 
came down with a decision which was in favor of the American steel 
industry. At that time the issue arose as to whether President Reagan 
would overrule the decision of the International Trade Commission. 
Senator Heinz, my late departed colleague, a great Senator, and I went 
to talk to then Secretary of Commerce Mack Baldrige who thought that we 
were right, the American steel industry ought to have that favorable 
decision from the International Trade Commission. Bill Brock, the trade 
representative, agreed. We then talked to Secretary of State George 
Shultz and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger who disagreed.
  The President overruled the International Trade Commission and made 
the decision which was based really on foreign policy and defense 
policy. The American steel industry paid a very high price which should 
have been paid out of the general revenues. Western Pennsylvania 
especially, but eastern Pennsylvania, too, with Bethlehem Steel, 
suffered very substantially.
  Right now, my distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum, and I are 
working very hard on trying to get Cigna fair access to the Japanese 
markets. Notwithstanding certain commitments by the executive branch 
and the trade representatives, we have not been able to accomplish 
that.
  So it seems to me that there is a very good reason on principle why 
matters which come to the Congress on trade issues ought to be subject 
to amendment. We have some understanding of the trade issues, and we 
have some understanding of our States' stakes. I think it would be 
entirely appropriate for us to be able to offer those amendments and 
not to have to simply vote yes or no, take it all or leave it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Pennsylvania has 
expired.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________