[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.
                                 ______