[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 16 (Tuesday, February 10, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Page S786]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          FREE TRADE AGREEMENT STRATEGY SHOULD PRIORITIZE JOBS

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our 
international trade policy--specifically this administration's 
selection of free trade agreements.
  A year-and-a-half ago, many of us stood on this floor arguing that we 
should grant the President trade negotiating authority, or fast track. 
We did so because we believe that good trade agreements can create jobs 
for American workers and farmers.
  I still believe that. And I believe we must move ahead with an 
aggressive trade agenda--even in an election year.
  So what does that mean? Of course, our first priorities should be 
moving ahead with negotiations in the World Trade Organization and 
completing the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Those agreements 
provide--by far--the best opportunities for American workers and 
farmers.
  Unfortunately, both of those agreements are languishing. WTO 
negotiations broke down last fall in Cancun. And the FTAA has been 
watered down so much that many are starting to question its value.
  The administration, rightly, has chosen not to put all of its eggs in 
one basket. They have, over the last several years, initiated a number 
of new free trade agreements.
  Now generally, I support this approach. We cannot allow the 
intransigence of some countries to hold us back from seeking new 
markets.
  But the process by which we select new FTAs is deeply flawed. 
Initially, there was no process at all. There was no consultation with 
Congress, no public process, no criteria. To be fair, there's been some 
improvement--but not much, and only after serious criticism from 
Congress and the business community.
  Mr. President, as a way to try to understand the administration's 
trade policy, Congressman Cal Dooley and I asked the General Accounting 
Office to assess the criteria and processes that drive the selection of 
our free trade agreement partners.
  Today, GAO is releasing their report, and its findings confirm a 
number of serious concerns.
  First, the criteria themselves are so broad I question whether they 
are meaningful. GAO finds that the criteria used within the 
administration to justify the selection of FTA partners have been a 
moving target. Different sets of criteria were used, for example, when 
deciding to go forward with the Central American and Australian FTAs 
than were used for some of the most recently announced FTAs, such as 
Thailand, the Andeans, and Panama.
  Whatever the criteria considered, they are not weighted by 
importance. Moreover, the criteria are so broad--and their 
consideration so open-ended--it is hard to imagine any country in the 
world that couldn't meet them.
  Second, to the extent that the existing criteria and review process 
set priorities, I question whether they are the right ones. GAO finds 
that strategic and foreign policy goals dominate the FTA selection 
process.
  In my view, this takes our trade policy down the wrong path. I have 
long believed that trade agreements should be pursued on their own 
merits--because they create commercial opportunities for our farmers 
and businesses, and most critically, because they hold out the prospect 
of more and better-paying jobs for American workers.
  These paramount concerns seem largely lost in the selection process, 
which looks like more of a throw-back to the Cold War--when trade 
policy was treated primarily as an instrument of foreign policy.
  Third, the entire selection process is woefully lacking in 
transparency and public participation. GAO finds that, at the time this 
report was requested, there was virtually no formal process at all for 
selecting FTAs.
  The attention focused on this situation by this investigation has 
clearly contributed to the development of a more formal interagency 
process for considering potential FTAs. But the process is still a 
closed one.
  There is no notice of countries under consideration for future FTAs 
until the choice has already been made. There is no formal process for 
soliciting the views of Congress, the business community, or the 
general public. There is no formal public discussion of how to 
prioritize negotiating resources.
  To my surprise, in fact, the administration has insisted until 
recently that the selection criteria themselves are classified. 
Important trade policy decisions like these should not be made in 
secret based on secret criteria.
  Mr. President, at a time when manufacturing and other jobs are 
increasingly moving offshore, we need a trade policy that helps U.S. 
companies create and keep good jobs in this country. We need to bring 
the focus of our trade agenda back to commercial benefits and, most 
importantly, to jobs. We need to have a public dialogue on how choices 
are made and how resources are allocated. I urge the administration to 
engage with Congress to address the issues raised by this report.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________