[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 99 (Friday, July 16, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1399-E1400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  U.S.-AUSTRALIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 14, 2004

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in qualified support of 
the U.S.-Australia Free Trade agreement.
  I support the trade agreement because it will open up markets for 
American goods and services. Our two countries already have a strong 
trade relationship--Australia is the ninth largest goods export market 
for the United States, with total trade close to $28 billion last year. 
The agreement will only strengthen this relationship further.
  Colorado, in particular, stands to gain from the agreement. Australia 
imported $113 million of goods and services from Colorado last year and 
is the 12th largest foreign market for Colorado. This agreement will 
only increase opportunities for Colorado businesses to find new markets 
for their goods and services.
  I support the bill because under the trade agreement, nearly all U.S. 
exports of manufactured goods will immediately become duty-free. Since 
manufactured goods currently account for 93% of total U.S. goods 
exports to Australia, this is significant. In fact, estimates are that 
the elimination of these tariffs could result in $2 billion per year in 
increased exports for our U.S. manufacturers.
  I am disappointed in provisions in the agreement on beef, but am 
encouraged that duties are gradually phased out. I am also disappointed 
in the agreement's provisions on wheat. I know that wheat growers are 
concerned about potential trade distortions and had urged negotiators 
to seek reform of the state trading enterprise, the Australian Wheat 
Board (AWB). Though the agreement doesn't reform the AWB, Australia did 
agree to work with the U.S. in the WTO to eliminate restrictions on the 
right of private entities to export agricultural products. This is a 
step in the right direction.
  I am concerned about potential precedents that this trade agreement 
could create. For instance, the trade agreement requires both countries 
to enforce their domestic laws on labor and environment. This is 
acceptable in this treaty, since Australia boasts strong labor and 
environment laws and good enforcement mechanisms. But this approach 
isn't acceptable in all agreements. I am disappointed that the 
Administration didn't apply the U.S.-Jordan agreement model to this 
agreement by including labor and environment standards within the text 
of the treaty itself.
  I am concerned about the potential precedent of the Administration 
meddling excessively in the internal affairs of a trading partner. With 
regard to this treaty, the USTR initially sought substantial changes in 
Australia's drug-pricing program. Though USTR was not completely 
successful, the agreement does give U.S. drug companies more say in 
what drugs are included under Australia's universal drug coverage 
program. While market access for U.S. goods is important, we shouldn't 
be in the business of bullying the world and potentially undermining a 
country's ability to provide prescription drugs to its citizens.

  Precedent is also a concern with regard to the agreement's 
incorporation of the U.S. law that protects the right of drug companies 
to prevent importation of products on which they own patents. Although 
this is of no practical concern in this agreement given Australia's own 
laws prohibiting the export of its subsidized drugs, I hope the 
Administration doesn't plan to use this trade agreement to reinforce 
its opposition to imported drugs. I don't understand why the 
Administration included the patent law provision, and I hope we won't 
see this in future agreements.

[[Page E1400]]

  I don't believe that the concerns I have listed outweigh the 
potential good of the bill, so I will vote in support of it today. It 
is not perfect, but I believe it represents an agreement that is 
essentially free and fair. Expanded trade is important to this country 
and the world, but it will only be beneficial to a broad range of 
people in our nation and in other nations if it is carefully shaped to 
include basic standards and protect workers' rights and the 
environment.

                          ____________________