[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 39 (Thursday, March 22, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2772-S2773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. Gramm, and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 599. A bill to amend the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 
1988 to establish permanent trade negotiating and trade agreement 
implementing authority; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page S2773]]


  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
establish permanent trade promotion authority, also known as Fast Track 
Trade Negotiating Authority. I am proud, to have Senators Gramm, and 
Hagel on board in this effort to give the Executive and Legislative 
branches the capacity to claim new markets for American products and 
services.
  As the chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs, as well as a member of the Finance Committee's 
subcommittee on International Trade, Senator Gramm is a leading 
proponent of opening markets worldwide. I believe he was the first to 
introduce fast track legislation in the 107th Congress and his January 
22nd bill, S. 136, is the basis for the bill I introduce today.
  As the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on 
International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion, Senator 
Hagel is also a leader on trade issues and has consistently supported 
global economic engagement.
  Our bill, the Permanent Trade Promotion Authority and Market Access 
Act of 2001, amends the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 
to extend fast track trade negotiating authority indefinitely. As 
colleagues recall, fast track includes both trade agreement negotiating 
authority and congressional fast track procedures, specifically 
expedited consideration of an agreement followed by the approval or 
rejection without amendments. Fast track trade negotiating authority 
was last authorized by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 
1988.
  Since expiration of the 1988 bill in early 1994, the White House has 
not had authority to negotiate trade agreements under fast track 
procedures. The President has been effectively prohibited from 
executing an aggressive trade policy, negotiating agreements when and 
where opportunities arise.
  In his `2001 Trade Policy Agenda', U.S. Trade Representative Robert 
B. Zoellick noted that ``in the absence of this authority, other 
countries have been moving forward with trade agreements while America 
has stalled.''

  What does Ambassador Zoellick mean by `moving forward'? Let us review 
some statistics, compiled by the Business Roundtable, concerning recent 
international negotiating activity. Of the estimated 130 free trade 
agreements, FTAs, in force around the world today only two include the 
United States; only 11 percent of world exports are covered by U.S. 
FTAs, compared with 33 percent for European Union FTAs and customs 
agreements; while Western European nations have negotiated 909 
bilateral investment treaties, BITs, the United States is party to only 
43; 16 Western European countries have BITs with Brazil--the largest 
country in Latin America, 16 with China, the largest country in Asia, 
10 with India, population nearly 1 billion, and 13 with Indonesia--
population more than 200 million. The United States has not signed a 
single BIT with any of these nations. In our own hemisphere, the news 
is not much better. Mexico has FTAs with at least 28 countries; 25 of 
these agreements were concluded since 1994.
  The statistics indicate that the U.S. is effectively choosing not to 
participate. While our competitors are carving out markets left and 
rights for their products and services, we seem satisfied to avoid the 
challenge of passing fast track trade negotiating authority and giving 
a President the capability to establish opportunities for American 
products.
  Specifically, our farmers need fast track. The U.S. is the world's 
leading agricultural exporter. Exports represent about 25 percent of 
gross farm income and an estimated 30 percent of U.S. crop acreage is 
exported.
  Considering fast track expired in 1994, it is not surprising annual 
U.S. agricultural exports are down from a record of $59.9 billion in 
1996. Exports were $49.2 billion in 1999 and $50.9 billion in 2000. $53 
billion in U.S. agricultural exports are predicted for 2001. Indeed, 
the Asian financial crisis caused a sizable fall in overall U.S. 
exports to Asia. Nonetheless, with fast track we could have established 
enough of a presence for our commodities in alternative markets to 
offset the impact of the crisis.
  The bottom line on our legislation is that it permanently establishes 
fast track trade negotiating authority for this President and his 
successors. Roberts-Gramm-Hagel is indeed ambitious, but it is needed 
to prevent the U.S. from being left out of expanding world trade and 
all of the economic, political, and strategic opportunities therein.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 599

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the `Permanent Trade Promotion 
     Authority and Market Access Act of 2001'.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO TRADE NEGOTIATING AUTHORITY.

       (a) Extension.--
       (1) Section 1102 (a)(1)(A) of the Omnibus Trade and 
     Competitiveness Act of 1988 (19 U.S.C. 2902 (a)(1)(A)) is 
     amended by striking `before June 1, 1993'.
       (2) Section 1102 (b)(1) of the Omnibus Trade and 
     Competitiveness Act of 1988 (19 U.S.C. 2902 (a)(1)) is 
     amended by striking `before June 1, 1993'.
       (3) Section 1102 (c)(1) of the Omnibus Trade and 
     Competitiveness Act of 1988 (19 U.S.C. 2902 (c)(1)) is 
     amended by striking `before June 1, 1993, the' and inserting 
     `The'.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--
       (1) Section 1102 (a)(1) and (b)(1) of such Act are amended 
     by striking `purposes, policies, and objectives of this 
     title' each place it appears and inserting `policies and 
     objectives of the United States'.
       (2) Section 1102(a)(2)(A) of such Act are amended by 
     striking `August 23, 1998' each place it appears and 
     inserting `March 21, 2001'.
       (3) Subsection (b)(2) and (c)(3)(A) of section 1102 of such 
     Act are amended by striking `applicable objectives described 
     in section 1101 of this title' each place it appears and 
     inserting `policies and objectives of the United States'.
       (4) Subsection (b)(2)(B) of section 1102 of such Act is 
     amended by striking `applicable purposes, policies, and 
     objectives of this title' and inserting `policies and 
     objectives of the United States'.
       (5) Subsection (a)(2)(B)(i) of section 1103 of such Act is 
     amended by striking `applicable purposes, policies, and 
     objectives of this title' and inserting `policies and 
     objectives of the United States'.
       (6) 1130(b)(1)(A) of such Act is amended by striking 
     `Before June 1, 1991.'
                                 ______