[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 29, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11644-S11645]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Grams, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. 
        Wyden):
  S. 1662. A bill to grant the President authority to proclaim the 
elimination or staged rate reduction of duties on certain environmental 
goods; to the Committee on Finance.


                     tariffs on environmental goods

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, since the end of the Second World 
War, the United States has led the world in establishing an open, rule-
based trade system. I believe it is very important that we continue to 
provide this leadership. We can only do this if we maintain a domestic 
consensus on trade policy.
  The United States has also provided strong international leadership 
on environmental protection. I have long been a strong proponent of 
both open trade and environmental protection. I have a foot in both 
camps. So today I am proud to introduce a bill which addresses both 
trade and the environment. I am joined in this effort by Senators 
Grams, Murray, and Wyden.
  I know people in the trade community who assume that anything good 
for the environment must be bad for business. They believe that 
protecting the environment means more government restrictions, higher 
costs, and lower profits. This logic is flawed.
  I also know people in the environmental community who assume that 
anything good for trade must be bad for the environment. They believe 
that more trade means more growth, and that more growth means more 
damage to the environment. This logic is flawed, too.
  We can take measures which benefit both trade and the environment. I 
am proposing one such measure today: eliminating import duties on 
environmental products as part of a multilateral agreement. This enjoys 
wide support from American environmental technology companies, as well 
as from members of the environmental community.
  Mr. President, let me recall a bit of recent trade history. During 
the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, the United States participated 
in a number of sectoral tariff initiatives. They were known as ``zero-
for-zero.'' Countries agreed to reciprocal tariff elimination, saying 
``I'll put my tariff at zero, if you'll do the same.''
  The Uruguay Round Act gave the President the authority to eliminate 
U.S. tariffs in these ``zero-for-zero'' sectors. But in several 
sectors, the negotiators did not reach agreement. The President retains 
tariff authority in these sectors. Examples are products like furniture 
and paper. Some of these sectors are once again under discussion in the 
WTO.
  In addition to these unfinished Uruguay Round sectors, the United 
States launched other zero-for-zero initiatives. This work began in the 
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, and then moved to the 
WTO. One of the sectors under discussion is environmental goods.
  Environmental goods cover a wide range of products made in America to 
control air, water and noise pollution, as well as solid and hazardous 
waste. These products include equipment for recycling and for renewable 
energy.

[[Page S11645]]

 They include technology for remediation and cleanup. Environmental 
goods also include scientific equipment for monitoring and analysis. 
All told, U.S. firms sell somewhere between $20 and $40 billion abroad 
annually. They could sell more if other countries would eliminate trade 
barriers, including tariffs.
  In my home state of Montana, businesses which export environmental 
equipment could expand their operations if they faced fewer foreign 
barriers. I have heard from one company, SRS Crisafulli, which is 
working in Latin America markets. Tariffs on their dredging equipment 
raise their sales price substantially. The inexorable law of the market 
is that higher sales prices mean lower sales.
  As my colleagues know, the United States maintains the world's most 
open market. Our tariffs are generally low. They are especially low on 
environmental goods, where U.S. import duties average less than 2%. 
This bill I am introducing today would eliminate these small tariffs--
nuisance tariffs, really. In return, other countries would abolish 
their import duties on American-made products. Their tariffs can be 
three or four times higher than ours. That's a good deal for us, and a 
good deal for world trade.
  It's also a good deal for the environment. The biggest importers of 
these products are the emerging markets of Asia, Africa and Latin 
America. Expanding the use of environmental technology will help limit 
or remedy environmental damage. It will have a positive impact on 
public health and the quality of life.
  Mr. President, the bill I am introducing preserves Congress' 
constitutional role in foreign trade. It requires the President to 
consult with us before implementing any environmental tariff cuts. And 
I would like to put our trade negotiators on notice that we expect them 
to bring to us a proposal with broad coverage, rapid staging and 
limited exceptions.
  I am particularly concerned about the scope of the agreement now 
being negotiated. I understand that some of our trading partners in 
APEC were unwilling to classify certain products as ``environmental 
goods'' because they are ``dual use.'' A hydraulic pump, for instance, 
can be used for either a sewage treatment plant or a microchip plant. 
We should press other countries to adopt a broad definition of 
``environmental goods'' to encourage dissemination of technology.
  Mr. President, ever since environmental tariff elimination surfaced, 
the U.S. told our trading partners not to worry that the President 
lacks tariff-cutting authority in the sector. When the time comes, we 
said, Congress will grant the necessary authority. I believe this 
effort merits the same kind of support from the Senate that it has 
gained support among the trade and environmental communities. It is 
particularly important that we show this support now, as the United 
States prepares to host the WTO Trade Ministers Meeting in Seattle. I 
encourage all of my colleagues to provide this support.
                                 ______