[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 72 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Page S5544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mr. BAUCUS:
S. 935. A bill to authorize the negotiation of a Free Trade Agreement
with the commonwealth of Australia, and to provide for expedited
congressional consideration of such an agreement; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. BAUCUS:
S. 943. A bill to authorize the negotiation of a Free Trade Agreement
with New Zealand, and to provide for expedited congressional
consideration of such an agreement; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. BAUCUS:
S. 944. 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; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to send three separate bills to the
desk, S. 935, S. 943, and S. 944. The bills I am introducing provide
authority to negotiate bilateral free trade agreements with three
important trading partners: New Zealand, Australia, and the Republic of
Korea.
Over the next several months, the Senate will turn its attention to
international trade. As we do so, we find ourselves under serious
scrutiny. Will we be able to reach consensus? Will we be able to break
the impasse?
I don't know the answers to these questions. I have been working hard
to find common ground on issues like labor and the environment, and on
ensuring the strength of our trade laws. I will continue to do so. But
we have a long way to go.
As we think about these issues, though, there is another, more subtle
logjam within the trade agenda. Right now, our vision of the future
seems locked in on sweeping, multilateral agreements, Free Trade for
the Americas, the launch of a new round of global trade negotiations
under the WTO.
These are enormous and complicated undertakings. These agreements are
also major opportunities for trade liberalization, and we should
continue to work hard to get agreements that are good for our workers,
farmers, and companies.
But it is interesting to listen to the rhetoric. Why can't we advance
labor and environment issues in the WTO? Some say developing countries
simply would not allow it. Why can't we agree that our fair trade laws
are not for sale in FTAA negotiations? Some say Brazil will never
relent.
Indeed, our trade policy seems to have become so focused on sweeping
multilateral agreements, that we ignore other avenues to trade
liberalization--much to the detriment of U.S. competitiveness.
Take a closer look at this so-called trade impasse: The U.S.-Jordan
Free Trade Agreement contains extensive and enforceable provisions on
labor and the environment. Our free trade agreement with Canada and
Mexico also addresses labor and environmental issues, with potential
recourse to trade sanctions. We are moving towards completing an
agreement with Chile--a country we know is open to labor and
environment issues because they just recently struck a free trade
agreement with Canada that includes enforceable provisions on both.
What's the moral of this story? It's simple. These agreements
demonstrate we can break the impasse on trade.
Indeed, we must move forward where we can, whenever we can. If not
fast track for all, then fast-track for some, specifically, those
countries where we have strategic commercial and political interests.
Those countries that will share our commitment to open markets, and our
values for environmental quality and labor rights.
Today, I am introducing legislation that would authorize trade
negotiations with Australia, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea. It
would grant fast track consideration for these agreements, while also
establishing a general policy framework for future negotiations.
Trade agreements must address the full range of issues, from
guaranteeing national treatment and market access, to protecting
intellectual property. From promoting electronic commerce to ensuring
that countries do not gain unfair advantage by lowering labor and
environmental standards. And these agreements must not weaken our fair
trade laws.
I believe there are many countries ready to take that deal. Australia
and New Zealand are two countries eager to negotiate free trade
agreements. We must continue to build our economic alliances in the
Asia-Pacific region, and both countries have been strong partners in
trade. We must also be realistic. An FTA would present tremendous
opportunities, but we must recognize where there are differences. One
such difference is the operation of the Australian wheat board, which,
despite recent reforms, still works to distort world markets.
Agriculture negotiations with both countries would require careful
treatment, but should allow us to better work together to reduce unfair
trade barriers in other parts of the world.
A trade agreement with Korea will take more time, as the issues are
more difficult to resolve. For example, Korea maintains very high
tariffs on beef, hurting ranchers in my home state of Montana. High
tariffs, high taxes, and other trade-restrictive practices in Korea,
reduce the competitiveness of American automobiles from Michigan and
Ohio. Government subsidies in Korea undercut American semiconductor
manufacturers in Idaho and Utah.
But we must not wait to negotiate agreements until all these problems
are solved. Rather, we should use FTA negotiations as part of the
solution. And with Korea, there are benefits that extend well beyond
trade. An FTA would help lock in Korea's economic and political
progress, and would also be an important part of our strategic
interests in Asia.
The bottom line is this: while America hesitates on trade
liberalization, and while many reject trying to reach a bipartisan
consensus, the rest of the world continues to move forward. 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.
I hope this legislation will send a strong signal to the rest of the
world: America intends to continue its leadership in the global trading
system.
______