[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21387-21388]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            APEC AND THE WTO

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to address recent 
developments in the world trading system that occurred over the past 
several days at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings.
  Since its birth in 1989, APEC has been a useful forum to advance U.S. 
goals for world trade. In 1993, President Clinton hosted the first 
summit meeting of APEC leaders. That meeting helped to nudge the 
Uruguay Round of global trade talks to a successful conclusion. The 
following year, APEC leaders made a political commitment to free trade 
in the Pacific Basin by a date certain. Two years later, APEC leaders 
prodded WTO members to sign Information Technology Agreement. That 
agreement eliminates tariffs on products where U.S. companies have a 
clear advantage.
  APEC has also launched some worthwhile projects aimed at making it 
easier to do business in the Pacific Rim.
  The 21 members of APEC are responsible for almost half of the world's 
trade. They include country's at various stages of economic 
development. Members are as diverse as Papua New Guinea, Russia, Peru, 
and Australia. APEC is the only organization where China, Taiwan and 
Hong Kong sit together as equals to discuss economic issues. In 1998, 
U.S. trade with APEC members was just over one trillion dollars, about 
70% of our trade. Our three biggest trading partners--Canada, Mexico 
and Japan--are in APEC
  Last week in Auckland, New Zealand, APEC's trade and foreign 
ministers held their annual meeting. This was followed by the annual 
summit meeting of APEC leaders, including President Clinton. These 
meetings provided an opportunity for using APEC to further American 
trade interests in two ways. One was bilateral. It dealt with U.S.-
China relations. The other was multilateral. It dealt with the World 
Trade Organization (WTO).
  On the bilateral front, the annual APEC summit meeting provided 
President Clinton an opportunity to meet with China's President Jiang 
Zemin and get our relations with China on track. In particular, it was 
a chance to restart the talks on China's accession to the WTO.
  To join the WTO, China must make one-way concessions in order to gain 
permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status. Before the China trade 
talks broke down for political reasons unrelated to trade, China made 
some important commitments to us in its accession protocol. For 
example, in addition to tariff cuts and agriculture concessions, China 
promised to eliminate technology transfer requirements for investment 
licenses. It will end investment performance requirements designed to 
take jobs from other countries.
  China's WTO accession requires no American trade concessions. And 
China

[[Page 21388]]

has agreed to a ``product-specific safeguard'' which will strengthen 
our ability to fight sudden import surges. A good accession protocol 
will be good for America. The Clinton-Jiang meeting in Auckland infused 
our bilateral trade talks with new life.
  The U.S. negotiators thus far have done an excellent job. They have 
already offered American farmers a ray of hope during a very difficult 
year. And we are close to an accession that will make trade with China 
fundamentally more fair for our country. It will then be up to this 
Senate, and to our colleagues, to take the final step by making the 
normal trade relations we now offer to China permanent.
  On the multilateral end, the Auckland meetings were an opportunity 
for APEC members to show a united front for progress to the other 
members of the WTO. There was some forward movement on this in 
Auckland, but not as much as we needed. The key issue is how much we 
should achieve in the next WTO trade round. The next round will be 
launched two months from now, when the United States hosts the Seattle 
WTO Ministerial.
  In this regard, last week I introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 
55. It contained the elements of what I believe we should achieve in 
the next round. At their Auckland meeting, APEC trade ministers 
endorsed a number of these elements. Procedurally, they said that the 
talks should be completed in three years, rather than the seven years 
it took for the Uruguay Round. They said that WTO members should treat 
the talks as one single package, not a collection of separate topics 
where members can opt out of the tough issues. They mentioned the need 
to address tariffs on manufactured products.
  All that was useful. But the APEC minsters did not go far enough. 
President Clinton and the leaders of the other APEC members set out 
ambitious goals for them five years ago. To achieve those goals, the 
trade ministers must set specific targets. In agriculture, for example, 
the Auckland meeting supported abolishing all export subsidies. That is 
a specific, ambitious target. We need the same specificity on other 
agricultural trade issues which, such as tariffs, trade-distorting 
domestic subsidies, and government trading companies. It would have 
been very helpful to have APEC trade ministers support progress in 
these areas
  The trade ministers should have made a much stronger statement on 
trade in services. This is not only an important component of developed 
economies. Services of all sectors--financial, communications, legal, 
engineering--are vital to developing nations as well.
  I wish the APEC trade ministers had been more concrete and specific 
in their treatment of the WTO talks. I hope this does not foreshadow 
three years of negotiations which yield weak results.
  Finally, I would like to endorse a point that the heads of the APEC 
governments made in their summit communique. They noted that great 
disparities in wealth threaten social stability. That is true both 
within a country and between nations. We must ensure that the benefits 
of globalization are widely shared. We must show that the global 
trading system improves the quality of life for WTO members.
  We need to emphasize the human dimension of globalization. That human 
includes issues such a labor and the environment, which APEC ministers 
and leaders largely ignored at Auckland. I hope that future meetings of 
APEC summits focus on these issues, and that APEC becomes a positive 
force for their full consideration in the WTO.

                          ____________________