[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6927-S6928]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Gramm, Mr. 
        Nickles, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. 
        Chafee):
  S. 1104. A bill to establish objectives for negotiating, and 
procedures for, implementing certain trade agreements; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Murkowski and 
our cosponsors to introduce the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2001. 
We have stepped forward because we believe that international trade is 
essential to increase opportunities for U.S. producers, to support U.S. 
jobs, and to provide economic opportunities for trading partners who 
need development.
  Last month the Administration release its 2001 International Trade 
Agenda, which outlined the President's principles for renewed trade 
promotion authority, TPA. At the same time, I was working with a group 
of pro-trade Democrats to identify our key priorities. What we 
discovered is that our two sets of principles had much in common.
  Over the last few weeks, Senator Murkowski and I have worked together 
to translate those two sets of principles into legislative language.
  The trade debate has been virtually deadlocked for years, with voices 
from the ``end zones'' taking center-stage. In our view, this bill 
represents the basic architecture of a bipartisan bill on what we 
believe is the ``50 yard line.'' We also look forward to the 
contribution that others will make before this bill is signed into law.
  The fact that we introduced this bill with bipartisan support is 
particularly significant because this is not just a set of ideas that 
happened to be popular with both Democrats and Republicans. This bill 
took real compromise on both sides.
  For my part, my contributions to this bill were based on the trade 
principles developed by New Democrats led by Cal Dooley in the House 
and several of my colleagues in the Senate. The New Democrat trade 
principles we released in May are fully incorporated into this bill.
  What we introduce today is not a trade agreement. Trade promotion 
authority is an authorization to the President to begin negotiations. 
Details of a trade bill will be developed through the process 
established by the grant of TPA. At the end of that process, Congress 
will review the result of those negotiations and grant approval or 
disapproval to the result.
  Trade promotion authority puts the will of Congress behind our trade 
negotiator, but it cannot and should not mandate a specific result from 
negotiations. We must leave it to our negotiators to reach the most 
favorable agreement they can.
  A trade promotion authority bill is a way for Congress to communicate 
its negotiating priorities. Some of the priorities we put forward in 
this bill include: negotiating objectives on labor and environment that 
receive the same priority as commercial negotiating objectives; a new 
negotiating objective on information technologies to reduce trade 
barriers on high technology products, enhance and facilitate barriers-
free e-commerce, and provide the same rights and protections for the 
electronic delivery of products as are offered to products delivered 
physically; adoption of measures in trade agreements to ensure proper 
implementation, full compliance and appropriate enforcement mechanisms 
that are timely and transparent; and a stronger process for continuous 
Congressional involvement in the process before, during, and at the 
close of negotiations so that the will of Congress is fully expressed 
in the final agreement.
  I have been concerned by the views expressed by some Members that it 
may be better to delay consideration of TPA until next year. This would 
be a ``major league'' mistake. There is a real price to be paid for 
delay.

[[Page S6928]]

  One hundred years ago the U.S. took an isolationist position with 
respect to our economic relations with Latin America. The result of 
this was that the Nations of Latin America adopted European technical 
standards. This has been a handicap to the U.S. economic position in 
Latin America ever since.
  We now are in danger of repeating this mistake. The best way to avoid 
doing so is to negotiate and enter trade agreement with nations so that 
American standards become the norm and American businesses and workers 
can benefit.
  Nothing is likely to occur in the next 12 to 24 months that will make 
reaching a consensus on trade promotion authority more likely. In fact 
just the opposite is true.
  The best way to move forward is to put TPA in perspective. It seems 
the debate on this issue moves quickly to being a referendum on whether 
trade and globalization are good or bad. That, frankly, is not the 
question. We can't walk away from globalization and we can't shut the 
door to international commerce. We can't put the genie back in the 
bottle.
  What we can do is try to shape these economic forces and define a 
trade agenda that addresses our priorities. The real question is, ``can 
the United States have more influence in the trade arena with TPA or 
without it.''
  I am convinced that we will give the President a stronger negotiating 
position, and get the country a better result, if we pass a grant of 
trade promotion authority as soon as possible. That is not to say that 
I advocate giving the President a blank check to cash as he pleases. It 
also does not mean that I believe in a ``free trade utopia'' either.
  I recognize there will be issues with our trading partners and that 
everyone doesn't always play by the rules. The way to address concerns 
with our trading partners is at the negotiating table. That makes it 
all the more important for us to have a strong negotiating position, 
and TPA is central to that.
  We encourage others to contribute specific suggestions to enhance the 
bill's ability to contribute to its principle objective of opening 
markets to U.S. goods, creating new and better jobs for Americans, and 
allowing the world to benefit from U.S. goods and services.
  Only 4 percent of the world's consumers live in the United States. If 
we want to sell our agriculture products, manufactured goods, and 
world-class services to the rest of the 96 percent around the world, we 
have to do it through trade. Trade promotion authority is the best way 
for the President to negotiate trade agreements that will open markets 
and improve standards of living at home and abroad.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, 
Senator Graham, in introducing the Trade Promotion Act of 2001. In my 
six and a half years on the Finance Committee, on which Senator Graham 
and I both serve, there has always been a strong bi-partisan consensus 
in favor of open markets and free trade. In introducing the Trade 
Promotion Act of 2001 today, we continue that spirit.
  This is a bill to which many members have contributed. Together, we 
believe that trade is the single most important catalyst for expanding 
jobs and opportunities here at home and encouraging economic 
development abroad.
  The United States has always been a trading Nation. We learned the 
law of comparative advantage very early in our history, and became the 
wealthiest Nation in history as a direct result. Economic theory tells 
us that trade between markets expands the opportunities and benefits in 
both those markets. As far as trade is concerned, the whole is always 
greater than the sum of its parts. Our Nation's history has been the 
practical embodiment of this theory. Without trade, this Nation would 
simply not be the greatest on earth.
  Yet no matter how many times we have learned this lesson, we forget 
it just as many times. Here we are in 2001, facing the same challenges 
on trade we have faced on countless occasions in the past. The 
champions of protectionism have become more sophisticated over the 
years. Still: their arguments are the same old fear-mongering and 
disinformation they have been peddling for 200 years.
  Does trade lead to winners and losers? Yes, that's called 
competition, the bedrock of our society.
  Does economic growth put pressures on underdeveloped societies in 
labor and environmental areas? Yes, it can. It did in this country too.
  But do the short-term pains of competition and other pressures on 
society outweigh the benefits of trade? No, not now, not ever.
  The United States can be leaders on trade or we can be followers. We 
can either shape the global economy or be shaped by it.
  There are 134 free trade agreements in the world today. The United 
States is party to only 2 of those. To my mind, that is a shameful 
record. We have done a disservice to our farmers, fishermen, businesses 
and the working men and women of this country.
  I recognize there are those who are concerned about the broader 
impacts of globalization. To them I say: you can't influence the 
outcome unless you are in the game.
  Does government have a role in easing the plight of firms and 
individuals negatively affected by trade? Absolutely. Sound economic 
policy should ease the transition of individuals and their companies to 
more competitive areas.
  Can the United States help other countries overcome short-term labor 
and environmental problems resulting from rapid growth? No question at 
all. Through technology and other means we have many tools to help the 
developing world.
  But the only way to address these problems is for the United States 
to exercise leadership on trade. Without Trade Promotion Authority, 
such leadership will be impossible.
  Senator Graham and I and our colleagues believe the Graham-Murkowski 
Trade Promotion Act of 2001 is the right vehicle to provide those 
leadership tools.
                                 ______