[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 62 (Wednesday, May 15, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4343-S4345]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, over the last couple of weeks during the 
debate on this trade bill we have heard arguments for and against trade 
promotion authority, the Andean Trade Preference Act, and trade 
adjustment assistance. Many of the arguments have focused, and I think 
rightfully so, on the impact of those issues on American jobs and on 
the American economy. American workers and the American economy benefit 
from free and open trade. Granting the President trade promotion 
authority will greatly help to facilitate open trade. It will help our 
economy and it will help jobs.
  Today, I would like to focus on another benefit of the passage of 
this legislation. I would like to talk about the benefit to our foreign 
policy, to our national security. A top priority in our foreign policy 
must be to promote freedom, peace, and stability in the world and 
particularly in this hemisphere, the Western Hemisphere.
  Last year, a Dallas Morning News editorial put it very well. Here is 
what they said:

       In the post September 11 world, free trade is not just good 
     economic policy. It is also good foreign and security policy.

  We, as a nation, stand to lose or gain depending on the economic 
health and security of our neighbors. A strong, a free, and prosperous 
Western Hemisphere means a strong, free, and prosperous United States. 
That prosperity depends in large part on free and fair trade. In 1987, 
President Ronald Reagan told Soviet Premier Gorbachev to tear down the 
Berlin Wall. It was a symbol of repression, keeping freedom and 
prosperity out of Eastern Europe. Today, we need to destroy another 
wall, a wall that prohibits the free and fair trade that Ronald Reagan 
envisioned for not just the people of Eastern Europe but for all of the 
world.

  I am talking, of course, about the tariffs, quotas, the lack of trade 
agreements that are really bricks in the walls that surround all 
countries. We must work to eliminate those barriers while also 
negotiating free trade agreements so our Nation has reciprocal access 
to these foreign markets. Such efforts are key foreign policy steps 
that

[[Page S4344]]

can effectively counter poverty, disease, and tyranny.
  From an economic point of view, business in the developing world 
struggles to survive for a multitude of reasons. During my 15 years in 
the House and Senate, I have traveled across many poverty-stricken and 
disease-ridden parts of the world. My wife Fran and I have seen the 
destitution, devastation, and desperation in which millions and 
millions of men, women, and children live. I believe we have both the 
ability and the obligation to help these suffering people.
  In addition to foreign aid, to foreign assistance, increasing our 
trade relationship with these countries will help promote economic 
freedom and growth.
  I cannot tell you how many foreign leaders I have met--I know my 
other colleagues have also met--who say do not be concerned about 
foreign assistance to us. What we really need is access to your 
markets. What we really need is the opportunity to sell the goods that 
we can produce to the American people. Tear down the artificial 
barriers. That is the best assistance that you can give us.
  So in addition to helping us, it helps them and ultimately helps our 
vision of the world, which is a world filled with countries that are 
Democratic and that have developing middle classes.
  Statistics show that when developing countries engage in 
international trade and investment, they develop and grow faster than 
closed economies. Trade agreements open up markets. It cuts poverty and 
advances the cause of economic and political liberty. The sad fact is 
the United States has underutilized trade to the detriment of our 
Nation and our trading partners, particularly in our own hemisphere. 
Right now, the United States is only party to 3 of the more than 130 
bilateral and free trade agreements in this area--that is right, only 
3. The European Union, on the other hand, has had free trade agreements 
with 27 nations. Mexico, our Nation's and my home State of Ohio's 
second leading trading partner, has secured 25 such agreements just 
since 1994.
  Providing our President trade promotion authority is a chance for us 
to, once again, show our leadership in this area.
  Many foreign leaders have expressed this frustration, that the 
agreements they sign with the United States, frankly, could get bogged 
down in Congress. So without trade promotion authority, it is 
difficult, if not impossible, for our President to conclude the 
agreements that we so desperately need. That is why this bill must pass 
and we must send it on to the President.
  Few foreign leaders candidly will be inclined to invest their time or 
effort in working out agreements that may be radically altered by 
Congress. At best, the administration's ability to negotiate bilateral 
free trade accords will be seriously hampered. We need to remember that 
trade promotion authority is not a new concept. Our Presidents were 
granted this authority almost continuously from 1974 to 1994 when the 
authority lapsed and was not renewed. We also should remember that 
under the provisions of TPA, the President is required to consult with 
congressional committees and to notify Congress at major stages during 
trade negotiations. And we also should remember that Congress retains 
the ultimate authority, of course, to approve or disapprove the final 
trade agreement.
  By granting trade promotion authority, we are not abdicating control 
of our Nation's trade policy. On the contrary, we in Congress are 
helping our Congress to lead. Many of my colleagues have spoken very 
eloquently about why the President needs trade promotion authority. And 
they have provided statistics showing how increased trade will help 
open markets and provide job opportunities right here in the United 
States in every sector of our economy. They have argued further that 
the President needs TPA in order to strike the best deals for American 
workers, for families, for farmers, and for business men and women.
  They have shown that trade promotion authority represents the vital 
partnership between Congress and the executive branch.
  These are all important points, and they are all valid. They all 
illustrate how free and fair trade agreements, accomplished through the 
exercise of trade promotion authority, are important for the United 
States. They are correct. But as we have seen, free trade also benefits 
developing countries, and this is important to the United States.
  For example, for most of the 20th century, Mexico had closed itself 
off from international trade and capital flows by setting up currency 
controls and trade barriers. Only with the Latin American debt crisis 
of the 1980s did Mexico slowly begin to open its economy to global 
trade and investment. Then with NAFTA the payoffs to Mexico's economy 
and workers were certainly very real.
  Between 1993 and 1999, Mexico climbed from 26th place to 8th place 
among the world's largest exporters, and in recent years Mexico's 
exports fueled growth rates of 4 percent. Free trade also has enhanced 
Mexico's overall stability, and the involvement of U.S. businesses has 
positively influenced both labor conditions and environmental quality 
in Mexico. Due to increased competition, domestic firms in Mexico 
increasingly are forced to compete with foreign-owned businesses and 
joint ventures by offering better working conditions and higher pay. 
The situation in Mexico is not perfect and the results so far are 
uneven, but overall there has been improvement.
  Meanwhile, U.S. production methods and technology are demonstrating 
to Mexican business that it is possible to be both profitable and 
environmentally responsible. The Mexican Government has actually 
strengthened its environmental regulations and enforcement procedures 
since NAFTA has been in place, and this, of course, benefits the United 
States, particularly the area along our southern border.
  Ultimately, the example of Mexico demonstrates that free trade is not 
only in Mexico's best interest, but it is also in our best interest as 
well.
  If we in the United States care about the illegal drugs that are 
coming into our country across our southern border, if we care about 
immigration problems, if we care about other issues of political and 
economic stability, then we want our neighbors to be peaceful 
democratic nations. It is in our national interest.
  It is in our national interest to see a Mexico, to see a Central 
America, to see the rest of this hemisphere be democratic, to see 
people have opportunities, to have a chance for the future. It is 
important for someone who has a family in Central America or Mexico to 
think they have the opportunity to feed that family and not have to 
make the very difficult, tough, and illegal decision to come to the 
United States and cross our border. It is in our interest for Mexico to 
develop, and one of the best ways is through fair trade.
  What is true of Mexico is also true with the rest of the hemisphere. 
That is why it is important this legislation pass.
  Some of the strongest evidence of the benefits of free trade is over 
the past couple of decades developing countries have been opening their 
markets voluntarily. Even some of the most traditionally closed 
economies are abandoning protectionism in favor of freer trade. The 
World Trade Organization's own history illustrates this trend.
  Established in 1948, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the 
precursor to the WTO, had only 23 contracting parties, most of which 
were industrialized countries. Today more than three-quarters of the 
WTO's 144 members are developing nations. Of the 49 countries 
designated as least developed by the United Nations, 30 have become 
members of the WTO, 9 are eagerly awaiting coming in, and 2 are WTO 
observers.

  The world of trade, economics, and international development is, of 
course, extremely complex, and it is hard to narrow things down to a 
direct cause-and-effect relationship, but, for most people, the 
benefits of free trade can be boiled down to one key point: Trade does 
spur economic growth and growth raises living standards.
  There is an undeniable relationship between growth rates and economic 
freedom, including the freedom to conduct international transactions, 
and research supports this. One study found that developing countries 
with open economies grew by an average of 4.5 percent per year in the 
1970s and 1980s,

[[Page S4345]]

while those with closed economies grew by only .7, less than 1 percent.
  Other studies have concluded that nations with relatively open trade 
regimes grew roughly twice as fast as those with relatively closed 
regimes. According to a recent report of Africa, East Asia, South Asia, 
and Latin America, were each to increase their share of world exports 
by just 1 percent, the resulting gains in income would lift 128 million 
people out of poverty. The $70 billion that Africa alone would generate 
is approximately five times the amount it gets through aid and debt 
relief. If developing countries as a whole increase their share of 
world exports by just 5 percent, this would generate $350 billion, 
seven times as much as they receive in aid.
  It is important that we now, more than ever, provide the President 
trade promotion authority.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________