[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 165 (Friday, November 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14853-S14854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           CHINA'S ACCESSION TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in my capacity as chairman of the 
International Trade Subcommittee and getting ready for the Seattle 
Round, as well as considering China's accession to the World Trade 
Organization, I want to speak on Congress' power and our responsibility 
on the whole issue of international trade.
  It is very clear in the Constitution that the Congress of the United 
States has the power, as one of the specifically delineated powers of 
Congress in the first article, to regulate interstate and foreign 
commerce. So the United States has just concluded a bilateral market 
access agreement with China. It should pave the way for China's 
accession to the World Trade Organization.
  From what I have heard about this agreement--and, of course, we only 
have summaries at this point--it is an exceptionally good one for the 
United States and especially for American agriculture. I said, when the 
agreement fell through on April 8, I was fearful that a lot of ground 
would be lost. I don't think, from what I know, there has been any 
ground lost with the renegotiation. Charlene Barshefsky, our U.S. Trade 
Representative, conducted herself in a highly professional way and 
negotiated what appears to be an excellent agreement, and she did it 
under very difficult circumstances.
  Now that the negotiations are finished, the job of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives becomes even more important. Our 
constitutional responsibility requires that the Senate and the House 
carefully review the agreement in its entirety, and the extent to which 
there are changes in law, they obviously have to pass the Congress, as 
any law would, and be signed by the President.
  It is a responsibility every Senator takes very seriously because it 
is assigned to us by the Constitution. And because the Congress has a 
unique and close relationship with the American people, we must also 
keep faith with the people who sent us here to fulfill our 
constitutional responsibilities.
  That is why it is critical we know everything that was negotiated.
  I want to put emphasis upon that statement.
  That is why it is important that the Congress of the United States 
know everything that was negotiated--everything, every issue, every 
detail, and every interpretation--so there can be no surprises, no 
private exchanges of letters, no private understandings about the key 
meanings of key phrases in the agreement, and no reservations 
whatsoever that are kept just between negotiators.
  In other words, if Congress is going to legislate these agreements 
and secure these agreements, Congress has a responsibility not only to 
make sure everything is on the table but to make sure the 
administration puts everything on the table.
  Let me be clear about this. There is an absolute requirement of 
disclosure. Congress must see everything that is negotiated. And it has 
not always been this way, or I wouldn't be to the floor asking my 
colleagues to consider this, and with an admonition to the 
administration to make sure everything is given to Congress. When 
congressional approval is required, only what we see and vote on should 
become the law. Nothing should become the law of the land that is 
secretly negotiated and that isn't submitted to Congress for our 
approval.
  Because there have been problems in this area in the past, Senator 
Conrad of North Dakota and I have introduced legislation. This 
legislation is contained in the African trade bill. That trade bill was 
recently approved by the Senate. I will work very hard to see that this 
provision is part of the final bill approved by conference committee 
before the African trade bill is sent to the President.
  Why are we where we are today with what Senator Conrad and I have 
tried to accomplish, and did accomplish, as far as the Senate is 
concerned? Unfortunately, past administrations have not complied with 
their basic principles of complete disclosure and complete openness in 
their submittal of agreements to the Congress. A prior administration--
it happened to be a Republican administration--violated the spirit, if 
not the letter, of this absolute good faith requirement of complete 
disclosure. This incident occurred in 1988. I want to give background 
on it because it was in regard to the Canadian Free Trade Agreement 
which became part of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
  At that time, there was disagreement about the meaning of a term 
relating to Canada's price support system for wheat.
  If anybody has heard the articulate speaking of the Senator from 
North Dakota on this issue--Senator Conrad has talked about this many 
times, about wheat unfairly coming into the northern United States in 
violation of the free trade agreement but somehow being legal because 
of these side agreements that Congress didn't know about in the past.
  There was a disagreement about the meaning of a term relating to 
Canada's price support system for wheat. The issue dealt with whether 
the Canadians were manipulating their price support system by unfairly 
defining a very key term in their favor, thus allowing them to sell 
wheat below cost in the United States market in violation of the clear 
meaning of a provision of the Canadian-United States free trade 
agreement.
  The United States insisted that Canada was, indeed, selling wheat 
below cost in violation of the agreement. Canada denied the violation. 
The dispute was even taken to a binational panel for resolution.

  In the argument before the binational panel for dispute resolution, 
the Canadian side at that time produced a letter from a few years back 
from the United States Trade Representative to the Canadians supporting 
the Canadian interpretation of the provision and very devastating to 
the case brought by the United States.
  The question now is whether the U.S. Trade Representative's letter, 
or his interpretation of this controversial and important provision, 
was properly reported to the Congress before we considered that 
agreement, voted on it, and it became the law of the land. Some might 
argue that it was disclosed. Others say it was not.
  In my view, because the issue of Canada's price support system for 
wheat was such a politically sensitive issue in the context of the 
NAFTA agreement, there should not have been any room for doubt what the 
administration's interpretation was. The disclosure of the 
administration's interpretation of this key language should have been 
fully and completely disclosed--not just in the fine print or in 
response to questions raised by a Senator at a hearing.
  When important issues of foreign commerce are at stake and Congress 
is exercising its constitutional power of regulating foreign commerce, 
we in the Congress should not have to guess what the answer is or even 
have to figure out how to ask the right questions in the hearing at the 
right time and in the right way to get an honest answer, to have open 
disclosure of what our agreements are and what the results of the 
negotiation are.
  This incident on the wheat and the Canadian Free Trade Agreement had 
unfortunate and profound consequences. It led some in Congress to 
believe they could not trust our negotiators. Some of us believed we 
weren't dealt with fairly. The American wheat farmer has been harmed as 
a result of it.
  Now, I want to say I have the highest regard for our negotiators, 
especially for Ambassador Barshefsky. She has done a remarkable job. 
She has my complete trust. So this is not about Ambassador Barshefsky. 
It is not about any one of our negotiators. Nor is this a partisan 
concern. The incident that sparked my concern occurred during a 
Republican administration. I am concerned about one simple thing. The 
principle of openness and full disclosure to Congress.
  This simple, basic principle applies not just to the agreement with 
China. In about ten days, the United States will help launch a new 
round of global trade negotiations in Seattle. This new round of trade 
liberalization talks will

[[Page S14854]]

cover agriculture, services, and other key trade issues. Many of these 
issues are sensitive, and even controversial.
  We must be confident that we will see everything that is negotiated 
in the new round before it can become law. The legislation Senator 
Conrad and I wrote that is part of the Africa trade bill requires full 
disclosure to Congress of all agreements or understandings with a 
foreign government relating to agricultural trade negotiations--what we 
refer to here as agricultural trade negotiations, objectives, and 
consultation.

  Anyway, our provision says that any such agreement or understanding 
that is not disclosed to Congress before legislation implementing a 
trade agreement is introduced in the Congress shall not become law. In 
other words, if Congress doesn't know about the agreement, it should 
not become law. That is very simple. It is very clear. It is a 
restatement of the principle of full disclosure. It is consistent with 
Congress' constitutional responsibility for foreign commerce, but I 
understand the administration opposes this commonsense provision. They 
want it removed from the bill.
  Mr. President, it says in the Conrad-Grassley bill, no secret side 
deals. The Congress agreed that there should be fully submitted to 
Congress all of the provisions of any negotiations that must be 
approved by Congress. I don't know why the administration wants this 
language removed from the trade bill, but this is what they have sent 
to the conferees in the Congress of the United States. They list this 
section that says no secret side deals. They are suggesting we strike 
this subsection.
  We cannot let this happen. I will do everything I can to make sure 
this physical disclosure provision becomes the law of the land when the 
House and Senate conferees finally consider the African trade bill. I 
believe our Government should live by the same standards we expect from 
farmers in my hometown of New Hartford, IA, or any businessman in Des 
Moines, IA. Tell us exactly what you mean. Show us everything in the 
agreement. Act in good faith.
  I ask my colleagues to support this provision and vote for it when it 
comes back from the conference committee so we have physical disclosure 
of everything so Congress isn't asked to vote on something that is 
secret, that we don't know anything about. If we do that, we are 
violating our constitutional responsibility to the people of this 
country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement the Senator from 
New York is recognized for 5 minutes.

                          ____________________