[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 155 (Friday, November 5, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14089-S14090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 1869. A bill to authorize the negotiation of a Free Trade 
Agreement with the Republic of Korea, and to provide for expedited 
congressional consideration of such an agreement; the Committee on 
Finance.


    united states-republic of korea free trade agreement act of 1999

  S. 1870. A bill to authorize the negotiation of a Free Trade 
Agreement with the Republic of Singapore, and to provide for expedited 
congressional consideration of such an agreement; to the Committee on 
Finance.


        united states-singapore free trade agreement act of 1999

  S. 1871. A bill to authorize the negotiation of a Free Trade 
Agreement with Chile, and to provide for expedited congressional 
consideration of such an agreement; to the Committee on Finance.


          united states-chile free trade agreement act of 1999

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I rise to send three separate bills 
to the desk. I am introducing these three pieces of legislation because 
I am very concerned about the direction of U.S. trade policy. Since the 
end of World War II, America has maintained a strong domestic consensus 
on the importance of open markets, allowing us to lead the world into 
an era of unprecedented growth. That consensus is fraying at the edges. 
Divisions over the role of labor and the environment have helped to 
undermine it.
  These divisions have prevented us from re-instituting fast track 
negotiating authority, which lapsed nearly five years ago. While we 
hesitate, the rest of the world continues to move forward on economic 
integration. Regional trade arrangements in Europe, Latin America, and 
Asia put U.S. exporters at a competitive disadvantage. We lose overseas 
markets to foreign competitors who enjoy trade preferences for which 
our farmers, manufacturers and service providers are ineligible. In my 
home state of Montana, wheat exporters have lost their share of the 
Chilean market to Canadian farmers, who are not subject to the 11% 
Chilean import duty that Montana farmers face.
  If we cannot agree on a global fast-track bill, then we should 
institute fast-track authority for specific countries where we have 
strategic commercial and political interests. In doing so, we should 
choose countries which not only share our commitment to open markets, 
but also share our values for environmental quality and labor rights.

[[Page S14090]]

  I recently outlined some broad principles on trade and the 
environment in a statement here on the Senate floor. FTA's should be 
consistent with those principles. In addition to addressing the 
environment, they should also firmly support core labor standards.
  As to the countries, the bills I am introducing provide authority to 
negotiate bilateral free trade agreements with three important trading 
partners: Singapore, the Republic of Korea and Chile. Taken together, 
these three countries buy about $40 billion worth of U.S. goods 
annually.
  For a number of years, the United States has considered, informally 
or formally, negotiating FTA's with all three of them. Soon after 
signing NAFTA, we talked to Chile about acceding to it as the fourth 
NAFTA partner. Chile waited patiently for Congress to give the 
President negotiating authority. That authority never arrived. Since 
then, Chile has gone ahead and signed bilateral trade agreements with 
both Mexico and Canada.
  Similarly, we broached the notion of either an FTA or accession to 
NAFTA with Singapore several years ago. Of all the countries of East 
Asia, none is more committed to open markets than Singapore. 
Negotiating an FTA not only makes commercial sense, it also reinforces 
our engagement in the Pacific Basin.
  Finally, the Republic of Korea is a country which has made enormous 
economic and political progress in the past two decades. It is now in 
the midst of a very painful restructuring forced upon it by the Asian 
financial crisis. An FTA with Korea would lock in the gains--both 
economic and political--of the past, much as NAFTA did for Mexico. 
Recently, the Deputy U.S. Trade Representative said that an FTA with 
Korea was an interesting idea, but that the only way to get there was 
to resolve our bilateral trade disputes. I think that's backwards. FTA 
negotiations are a way to resolve these issues.
  The bills also establish a general policy framework for negotiating 
free trade agreements. They require that FTA's address the full range 
of issues, from guaranteeing national treatment and market access, to 
protecting intellectual property. They require that FTA's address 
electronic commerce, an area where the United States has a strong 
commercial interest. And hey require that FTA's address the labor and 
environmental issues.
  I entered the Senate not too many years after Congress passed the 
original fast-track legislation. At that time, the notion of 
``intellectual property'' was something novel. The idea that 
``intellectual property'' should be considered in trade negotiations 
was ridiculed. Many said that patents, copyrights and trademarks were 
domestic issues, and thus not appropriate subject for trade agreements. 
But the United States insisted that the world trading system address 
these issues. We put a lot of political capital behind it. Today, 
nobody questions the appropriateness of WTO rules for trade-related 
intellectual property rules.
  I firmly believe that in the near future, we will see the same result 
with trade-related labor and environmental issues. We cannot--and 
should not--avoid these issues. So the bills I am introducing require 
that FTA's address trade aspects of labor and the environment.
  We must identify potential environmental consequences--both positive 
and negative--of trade agreements, and put in place mechanisms to deal 
with any adverse impacts. Similarly, we must reaffirm our commitment to 
core labor standards through a mechanism dealing with any adverse 
impacts that trade agreements have on labor markets.
  Mr. President, we need to send a strong signal to the rest of the 
world that the United States intends to continue its leadership of the 
global trading system. The Africa Trade Bill that we passed here this 
week was an excellent step in the right direction. We must continue to 
make progress on opening markets for American farmers, manufacturers 
and service providers. Negotiating bilateral free trade agreements with 
like-minded countries will support our multilateral negotiations in the 
WTO.
  Just as we negotiated NAFTA and the Uruguay round at the same time, 
we should pursue bilateral free trade agreements with Chile, Korea, and 
Singapore while we are negotiating the next round in the WTO.
                                 ______