[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1339-1351]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

      NOMINATION OF ROBERT B. ZOELLICK TO BE UNITED STATES TRADE 
                             REPRESENTATIVE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now go into executive session and proceed to consideration 
of the nomination of Robert Zoellick which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Robert B. 
Zoellick, of Virginia, to be United States Trade Representative, with 
the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time for debate 
on the nomination shall be limited to 2 hours equally divided between 
the chairman, Mr. Grassley, and the ranking member, Mr. Baucus.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today we are taking up the nomination of Robert Zoellick to be United 
States Trade Representative. Mr. Zoellick appeared before the Finance 
Committee exactly one week ago, and I am pleased that we have been able 
to schedule this vote so quickly. I support this nomination, and I urge 
my colleagues to join in supporting his confirmation at the end of this 
debate.
  Trade has never been as important to the American economy as it is 
today. The import and export of goods and services is equivalent to 27 
percent of America's gross domestic product, as compared to only 11 
percent in 1970. Opening and expanding markets around the world for our 
manufactured goods, our agricultural commodities, and our services is 
critical for our economy to grow and for the creation of good quality 
jobs at home. Expanded trade is also critical for global economic 
growth.
  For that reason, I was very pleased that President Bush, when 
announcing the selection of Robert Zoellick to be USTR, stressed that 
Mr. Zoellick would be a member of the Cabinet and would report directly 
to the President. Trade must have a prominent and equal place at the 
table when we make decisions about our Nation's global affairs.
  Last year, the Congress and the Administration worked together on 
trade policy. We had a number of significant accomplishments. We passed 
a bill to extend permanent normal trade relations status to China, 
PNTR, once it accedes to the WTO, a monumental achievement. We passed 
legislation on expanding trade with Africa and enhancing CBI, the 
Caribbean Basin Initiative. We changed the structure of the Foreign 
Sales Corporation. And we passed a Miscellaneous Tariffs Act.
  This year, we have a full trade agenda. We must build on the progress 
we made last year. We must make sure that we are not left behind as 
other nations make new trade arrangements with each other. Let me 
stress that our trade policy and our efforts at further trade 
liberalization must be carried out in the proper way.
  Our first priority must be to rebuild the consensus on trade in this 
country. Further progress on trade liberalization and opening markets 
requires a political consensus, and that means a public consensus. We 
must demonstrate to all our citizens that trade and expanding markets 
contribute to their prosperity. We must address legitimate labor and 
environmental concerns in our trade agreements. We must aggressively 
enforce our trade laws. And we must ensure that we provide new 
opportunities to those who have been left behind by globalization.
  One focus of discussion during Mr. Zoellick's confirmation hearing 
was whether it was appropriate to include labor and environmental 
issues in trade negotiations. In fact, this has dominated much of the 
trade policy debate over the past decade.
  I must confess to a good deal of frustration. Trade-related labor and 
environmental issues were addressed in NAFTA, the North American Free 
Trade Agreement, and in the U.S.-Jordan FTA. The United States 
concluded a historic agreement with Cambodia in cooperation with the 
International Labor Organization that tied increased access to the 
United States market to Cambodian observance of basic labor rights. Our 
law on the Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, as well as the 
Caribbean Basin Initiative, CBI, also include labor provisions.
  Labor and environmental issues were on track to be included in free 
trade agreements with Singapore and Chile that the Clinton 
Administration was negotiating in its closing days.
  Labor and environmental issues have been discussed under the aegis of 
the world trading system. In the last several years, a number of 
important WTO disputes have directly involved environmental matters. 
The WTO has created a Committee on the Environment.
  And the interest in labor and environment is not limited to the 
United States. In developing the European Union, the countries of 
Europe addressed these issues. As they work on their own free trade 
area, some of our neighbors in Latin America have also recognized the 
need to address labor and the environment.
  In short, like it or not, environment and labor issues are firmly on 
the trade agenda. Unfortunately, at least in some circles, the debate 
in the United States goes on as if none of these things had happened, 
as if the issues will just go away if we do not talk about them.

[[Page 1340]]

  I fear that a major reason for the disappearance of the public and 
political consensus in the United States is our refusal to acknowledge 
these important issues. I don't pretend to know all the answers about 
how to deal with these complex questions, but I do know that it is long 
past time for us to acknowledge them and to begin to address them.
  For this reason, I have made it clear that I will vote against fast 
track trade negotiating authority, and work to defeat it, unless labor 
and environmental issues are meaningfully addressed.
  I welcome the fact that, in his confirmation hearing, Mr. Zoellick 
expressed a willingness to address these issues. In that spirit, let me 
issue a challenge to him and to the Bush Administration on three 
specific labor and environmental issues related to trade.
  First, I call on Mr. Zoellick to endorse the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade 
Agreement and work for prompt congressional passage. Among other 
provisions, this agreement calls upon Jordan and the United States to 
adhere to their own labor and environmental laws. Because of this, the 
agreement has been endorsed by many labor and environmental groups.
  Some have asserted that the Jordan agreement would open our labor and 
environmental laws to challenge or would block us from making any 
change in our own laws. This is simply untrue.
  The agreement only requires that each country enforce its own laws 
and not make changes designed to distort trade. The agreement states 
explicitly that each country has the right to establish its own 
domestic labor and environmental standards and laws.
  I cannot imagine how these modest provisions can credibly be seen as 
a threat. I can only conclude that those making the charges have not 
read the agreement. I refer them to the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade 
Agreement.
  Second, I call on Mr. Zoellick to implement rigorously the Executive 
Order requiring an environmental assessment of all trade agreements. 
These assessments help to focus discussion, identify issues, and avoid 
needless problems. We should be doing these assessments for all future 
trade agreements.
  Finally, I call on Mr. Zoellick to appoint an Assistant USTR for 
Labor. This position was created last year and has never been filled. A 
trade official focused on labor could ensure that labor issues are not 
ignored and serve as an important point of contact between our trade 
negotiators and the labor community. This position should be filled 
before the April Ministerial meeting that will discuss the Free Trade 
Area for the Americas, the FTAA.
  By taking these three steps, Mr. Zoellick and the Bush Administration 
would demonstrate that the commitments to work together in a bipartisan 
fashion are real and not just rhetoric. It would help set the stage for 
granting fast track authority and go a long way toward establishing 
trust between the Congress and the administration on trade policy.
  As Mr. Zoellick sends his deputies to the Finance Committee for 
confirmation, I plan to review his progress in meeting these three 
challenges that I have set out today.
  Let me now discuss a number of other trade issues that will be before 
the Administration and the Congress in the coming months.
  I have already discussed the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Jordan 
is a critical partner in our effort to promote lasting peace in the 
Middle East. This agreement will help bring our two nations even closer 
together.
  Second, the Administration should send the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral 
Trade Agreement to the Congress soon. We have made significant progress 
in our economic and political relationship with Vietnam over the past 
decade, and this agreement builds on that. The agreement requires major 
liberalizing changes in Vietnam's economic and trade structure. The 
agreement paves the way for Vietnam's eventual application to join the 
WTO. The agreement will provide American business and agriculture with 
predictability and stability in Vietnam's market. We need to approve 
this agreement, and we need to look at how to deal with legitimate 
labor and environmental issues.
  Third, President Bush will attend the Summit of the Americas in 
Quebec in April, where the major topic will be progress on completing a 
Free Trade Area for the Americas. I support trade liberalization in 
this hemisphere. I will support fast track negotiating authority for 
the FTAA, so long as it properly accommodates legitimate labor and 
environmental concerns. I hope that President Bush will tell the 
gathering of leaders in Quebec that he plans to work closely with 
Congress, business, labor, and environmental groups over the coming 
year so that he can succeed in enactment of this negotiating authority.
  Fourth, the U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement expires on March 
31. Today, the U.S. lumber industry is in dire straits. The price of 
lumber is less than in 1995. Many timber operations in Montana, and 
around the nation, have closed as a result of the depressed lumber 
market--displacing workers and devastating communities. The Canadian 
softwood lumber industry receives over four billion dollars in stumpage 
and other subsidies annually. There is considerable evidence that they 
are dumping lumber into the United States. To make matters worse, the 
absence of adequate environmental laws in Canada clearly provides an 
unfair advantage to Canadian firms. It contributes to over-cutting in 
Canada's forests and damages the environment, with significant 
implications for our own forests and environment. We need to resolve 
this issue quickly and, I hope, avoid lengthy and costly litigation.
  Fifth, the agriculture crisis. Commodity prices remain near record 
low levels. Agriculture is Montana's largest industry. Over 60 percent 
of Montana's grain and meat products are exported, so the farmers and 
ranchers in my state depend on new and growing markets. We need to 
expand agricultural exports from Montana and from the entire country. 
That means:
  Opening agricultural markets around the world.
  Attacking the massive agricultural export subsidies of the European 
Union that distort food trade world-wide.
  Getting Europe to end its decade-old ban on U.S. hormone-treated 
beef.
  Taking measures to end the trade distorting activities of the 
Canadian and Australian wheat boards, including completion of the 
Section 301 investigation of the anti-competitive practices of the 
Canadian Wheat Board.
  Ensuring that China fully implements its WTO obligations, as well at 
the U.S.-China bilateral agreement on agricultural cooperation.
  Abandoning unilateral embargoes, including the embargo on Cuba that 
has closed that market to our food producers.
  Ensuring that our domestic agriculture industry is insulated against 
devastating surges of imports, such as has happened with lamb.
  Sixth, the survival of America's steel industry is in jeopardy. Over 
the next few months, Congress, the Administration, the steel companies, 
and the United Steelworkers of America must work together on a program 
to prevent irreparable damage to this important sector of our economy.
  Finally, we need to develop a comprehensive approach to monitoring 
and compliance of trade agreements. This includes bilateral agreements 
as well as multilateral commitments of our trading partners. China's 
accession to the WTO will present further new challenges to our ability 
to ensure full compliance. We need an early assessment of the 
monitoring activities in the Executive Branch to ensure that we are 
using them as effectively as we can. I welcome Mr. Zoellick's statement 
at his confirmation hearing that justice delayed is justice denied. We 
take a double hit when we fail to ensure full compliance with trade 
agreements. First, our businesses, workers, and farmers don't receive 
the benefits we negotiated. And then, our credibility as a nation is 
damaged, and our future negotiating ability is hampered. We must be 
more aggressive on monitoring and compliance.

[[Page 1341]]

  This is a full agenda for a short period of time. I look forward to 
working closely with Bob Zoellick as we try to rebuild the consensus 
for trade so that we can enhance the benefits to America of opening 
markets and expanding trade liberalization.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  I apologize to Senator Baucus because I was not here to hear his 
statement. I am glad he was able to go ahead and proceed with his 
opening statement. I also appreciate Senator Baucus' cooperation during 
the hearing and, more importantly, to be able to bring this nomination 
to the floor without our committee meeting.
  Obviously, I am going to support President Bush's nomination of 
Robert Zoellick to the position of U.S. Trade Representative. As 
chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I am pleased to report to my 
distinguished colleagues that Robert Zoellick is uniquely qualified to 
represent the United States in an extremely important position--
important because the trade negotiations that will take place in the 
year 2001. As far as the trade negotiations that are ongoing, similar 
to the China wall, they never stop.
  They just go on and on.
  I want to go into some detail about Mr. Zoellick's impressive 
professional qualifications for a very demanding and highly sensitive 
Cabinet post. One of the questions I asked him in the private meeting 
in my office was whether or not he was prepared to spend this much time 
away from home. There is much time away from family because there is a 
tremendous commitment to travel with this job besides the policymaking. 
You get the impression that these people who do our trade negotiations 
just never have any private time whatsoever. Obviously, when he takes 
on a demanding job such as this, we know he is committed to doing what 
needs to be done.
  Before I go into his impressive professional background, I would like 
to say a word about his performance at his Senate Finance Committee 
nomination hearing. That was on January 30.
  I think it is fair to say that Members on both sides of the aisle 
were highly impressed with Mr. Zoellick's thorough command of complex 
trade issues, with his broad visions of America's historic leadership 
role in the whole international trade regime, and with his 
understanding of the close cooperation required between the legislative 
and executive branches of government in crafting and implementing an 
effective U.S. trade policy.
  The nature of trade issues Congress will deal with this year clearly 
requires that a person of Mr. Zoellick's stature and ability be the 
U.S. Trade Representative.
  In regard to working closely with Congress, understand that Congress 
has the authority to regulate international, or what you call 
interstate, and foreign commerce. We guard this very jealously. We have 
to, in the process of doing that under the practicality of 535 Members 
of Congress and negotiating with 138 different countries in the World 
Trade Organization on the issues of reducing tariff and nontariff trade 
barriers or settling any sort of dispute. From time to time, Congress 
has given the President of the United States the authority to do that 
in negotiation. But we do it with a very tight rein. I suppose in the 
future it will be even more of a tighter rein. That requires a person 
in Mr. Zoellick's position as U.S. Trade Representative to work very 
closely with the Congress, particularly the Ways and Means Committee 
and the Senate Finance Committee, consulting with us on a regular 
basis. That consultation, as I have seen in the past, has made the 
executive branch of government responsive to Members of Congress; more 
importantly, respectful of our constitutional rights as we guard them. 
It is our responsibility to do that not only for the economic interests 
of our constituents but for the sole fact that we take an oath to 
uphold the Constitution of the United States.
  I will mention a few of the challenges that face Mr. Zoellick, and 
then I will go into why Mr. Zoellick is ideally suited to deal with 
them.
  One important trade challenge right around the corner is the free 
trade area of the Americas negotiations.
  The objective of these talks, which are supposed to conclude in 2005, 
is to create a single free trade zone of nearly 700 million people, 
stretching from the Arctic Ocean in the North, to Tierra del Fuego in 
the South.
  The free trade area is the single most important economic initiative 
we have undertaken with Latin America since President Kennedy launched 
the Alliance for Progress in 1961.
  Latin America is our fastest growing regional trade partner. Roughly 
46 percent of all the goods manufactured in this country are exported 
to our own hemisphere. We export large amounts of our agricultural 
products to the FTAA countries as well.
  Our continued prosperity, and our leadership in world trade, clearly 
rests on the success of these talks.
  But when you see the concentration of trade in the Western 
Hemisphere, you know why these talks are singularly important.
  Yet despite the obvious importance of the FTAA, there is little 
agreement on the major issues under discussion. It's time to get these 
talks moving again. And it's time for the United States to resume its 
leadership in trade not only in the Western Hemisphere but in all 
areas.
  The FTAA Ministerial Conference is coming up in Buenos Aires in the 
first week in April. Two weeks after the FTAA Ministerial, the United 
States will attend the Third Summit of the Americas in Quebec City.
  Mr. Zoellick knows how important U.S. leadership is in getting the 
FTAA talks headed in the right direction.
  And more importantly, he has the skills and the background to get the 
job done.
  What about these skills?
  For example, while serving in the former Bush administration, Mr. 
Zoellick played a key role in the NAFTA process. At one point during 
the NAFTA negotiations, when the talks weren't going well, Mr. Zoellick 
served as a special channel with then President Salinas of Mexico to 
keep the negotiations on track.
  Also during the former Bush administration, Mr. Zoellick served as 
Counselor of the Department of State, and Under Secretary of State for 
Economics. At the State Department, he helped launch APEC, the Asia 
Pacific Economic Cooperation group for advancing trade and prosperity 
in that region.
  The creation of APEC was a tremendous achievement. It is a highly 
successful international trade and economic forum. APEC's main agenda 
is to dismantle trade and investment barriers in the region, to 
strengthen an open, multilateral trading system, and to encourage 
constructive interdependence by encouraging the flow of goods, 
services, capital, and technology.
  Mr. Zoellick's central role in launching APEC clearly demonstrates 
his deep commitment to the principle of international cooperation that 
is at the heart of America's leadership in promoting global free trade.
  It also demonstrates his broad vision, and his ability to accomplish 
big things.
  In recognition of his outstanding service to his country, Mr. 
Zoellick received the Distinguished Service Award, the State 
Department's highest honor.
  Another important trade challenge this year is to launch a new round 
of multilateral trade negotiations at the WTO Ministerial to be held 
later this year in Qatar.
  The failure of the Seattle WTO Ministerial was a terrible 
embarrassment for the United States, and a major setback for trade 
liberalization around the world than we now realize 18 months later.
  The collapse of the Seattle talks was also a major setback for 
American agriculture. Without a comprehensive

[[Page 1342]]

new round of global trade negotiations, it will be extremely difficult 
for American agriculture to gain access to new markets, and to get rid 
of the trade-distorting subsidies and barriers that shut our 
agricultural producers out of foreign markets.
  If we lose the momentum for the liberalization of world agricultural 
markets that we gained with the successful conclusion of the Uruguay 
Round of trade negotiations, we may never be able to recover.
  Here too, Mr. Zoellick's experience demonstrates that he is the right 
person for the job of U.S. Trade Representative.
  In 1992, when it looked like the fundamental disagreement between the 
European Union and the United States over agricultural trade 
liberalization would end the Uruguay Round in failure, Mr. Zoellick 
helped forge the Blair House Accord, the compromise agriculture 
agreement that broke the negotiation logjam, and saved the Uruguay 
Round, not just for agriculture but for other segments of the economy 
that was held by them.
  Thanks to Mr. Zoellick's efforts in crafting the Blair House accord, 
negotiators then immediately were able to clear the political hurdles 
that brought about an agreement.
  As a result, the World Trade Organization agreement on agriculture 
represents the first serious step toward reform of the international 
rules governing trade in agricultural products. That agreement is now 
the spring board for current efforts to further liberalize world 
agricultural trade. Other trade challenges beyond agriculture that Mr. 
Zoellick and the Congress will be dealing with include the United 
States-Jordan Free-Trade Agreement, the United States-Vietnam Trade 
Agreement, we have the Singapore free-trade negotiations, and on 
December 5th of last year we began the Chile free-trade negotiations. 
Those latter two are on the table. We would expect perhaps some 
conclusion shortly.
  Mr. Zoellick's record of achievement clearly demonstrates he has the 
ability to handle those which might be called lesser issues because 
they are bilateral but still very important.
  During his distinguished career, he has led various bilateral trade 
negotiations with the European Union, with Korea and other nations, but 
most importantly they involved the structural impediment initiative 
with the country of Japan.
  I will say a word about another tough trade challenge, one that will 
involve, hopefully, this Congress. As chairman of the Senate Finance 
Committee, I can help move it along. We had discussions with Senator 
Baucus about that, even this week, about how he and I can get together 
and try to solve some of the things involved with giving the President 
negotiating authority; in other words, that authority which allows a 
President to move forward and finalize a multilateral or WTO-involved 
trade agreement. It is very important to have that even for bilateral 
agreements but perhaps less important for bilateral than for the 
multinational, multilateral negotiations. It will be very difficult to 
write this legislation. We shouldn't have any illusions that it will be 
easy to accomplish. I can't think of a single thing more important to 
restoring America's leadership in trade and to preserving America's 
negotiating credibility.
  It is certainly true, as many have pointed out, that the United 
States can start negotiations without the President having trade 
negotiating authority. We know this from our experience during the 
Uruguay Round when it took 2 years to get legislation renewing the 
President's trade negotiating authority through Congress after the 
Uruguay Round started. But doing it that way misses the point. The 
President--not just this President, any President--needs negotiating 
authority from Congress because his negotiating credibility is 
diminished, sometimes a little, most often a lot, without that grant of 
authority from Congress. That is as true at the start of formal trade 
negotiations as it is at the conclusion--maybe a little less at the 
beginning than at the end.
  We would all be better off if we could have the President go to the 
table with Congress saying here is what we want you to do for us; here 
is how we want you to keep in touch with us so we can represent the 
people, our constituents, and the leeways that we might give on final 
negotiations when we get something we can pass.
  This is sometimes referred to as fast track. It is innovation. We all 
remember from history, designed in large part as a response to the 
diminished U.S. negotiation credibility that resulted from the failure 
of Congress to implement some of the trade agreements concluded during 
the Kennedy Round. Here again I think Mr. Zoellick can play a very 
important role. I think he has a record that speaks for itself.
  Other than U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills, Mr. Zoellick spent 
more time with the Congress than any other administration official to 
get fast track authority passed in 1991. I have confidence in Mr. 
Zoellick's ability to work with Congress, to get a bill renewing the 
President's trade negotiating authority through Congress. We need to at 
least start that process, even though it is a very difficult process, 
and do it soon. That is the conversation that Senator Baucus and I have 
had to this point.
  I conclude with why I view Mr. Zoellick's nomination with enthusiasm. 
It is a very extraordinary record and has some length. I have looked 
carefully at what he has done during the past 20 years in promoting 
America's trade interests. That record tells me Mr. Zoellick 
understands that trade matters to every American. It matters to the 
farmers in my hometown of New Hartford, IA, who want to sell his or her 
grain in the international markets. It matters to the Caterpillar 
workers in Illinois who make tractors for sale in Asia, Europe, and 
America. It matters to John Deere workers in Waterloo, IA. One out of 
five jobs on that assembly line are related to export. These are very 
good jobs and on average, jobs connected with trade, pay 15 percent 
above the national average.
  It matters to the Boeing employees in the State of Washington who 
make state-of-the-art aircraft for every major world aircraft maker. It 
matters to the radio workers who make avionics in Cedar, IA, that go 
into these Boeing airplanes. It is going to involve their jobs, as 
well. Trade is very important in almost every State. But 40 percent of 
our agricultural products are exported. I don't have a dollar value on 
that, but I know for manufacturing and services, the dollar value of 
those exports is many times what it is for agriculture. Perhaps most 
importantly, open international markets increasingly matter to millions 
of very small entrepreneurs as well. These are the people who compete 
for business every day, wherever they find it, anywhere in the world.
  Bob Zoellick understands that all of these Americans, whether they 
toil on the farm, whether they punch the time clock at the assembly 
line, or whether they work in the high-tech new economy, are able, 
through these jobs, which are better jobs because of international 
trade, to pay their mortgage; they are able to support their families; 
and they are able to make their communities better places to live.
  I believe Mr. Zoellick has already shown himself to be an eminent 
public servant with an outstanding record of leadership in trade policy 
who has already served his country well. I have come to know him and to 
respect him. I know that my distinguished colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle will as well.
  As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I strongly urge my 
distinguished colleagues to vote to confirm this nomination and appoint 
this outstanding individual to America's most important international 
trade position.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, 
the esteemed Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Montana.
  I rise to speak not to question the nomination of Mr. Zoellick--he is 
obviously qualified for the position of U.S.

[[Page 1343]]

Trade Representative--but to question the trade policy priorities of 
administrations past and present. For the problems our manufacturers 
and workers face today are not Democratic problems or Republican 
problems, they are problems with a trade liberalization approach that 
needs to be rethought and reinvigorated. That approach has led to 
record trade deficits and alarming trends in income inequality. The 
current crisis in the U.S. steel industry demonstrates that unfettered 
importation of unfairly traded products causes serious harm to our 
manufacturers and workers.
  Sustained reflection on the causes and consequences of the trade 
deficits has led me to three conclusions. First, there must be a 
general recognition that low-wage competition from less-developed 
countries is part of the problem. The low wages in those countries both 
undercut the economics of production in the United States and impede 
the development of a middle class that can purchase U.S. exports. Our 
trade policy cannot be complacent as first-world manufacturing plants 
are relocated to take advantage of less-developed labor markets, a 
phenomenon that makes it increasingly difficult for American employers 
to stay competitive and, at the same time, pay good wages and provide 
good benefits. If, as President Bush maintains, we are to be 
compassionate, let us start by making sure that American workers are 
not made worse off--on balance--by future moves toward freer trade with 
less-developed countries.
  Indeed, the inevitable result of the current trade liberalization 
approach in many historically high-wage and efficient industries is 
bankruptcy. Need I tell you Senators about all of the steel companies 
in, or on the verge of, bankruptcy? Are we so naive as to believe that 
the problems of the steel industry--as well as the elimination of 
millions of manufacturing jobs across the economy since 1979--are 
unconnected to predatory trade practices by foreign producers and their 
governments? For those who have any doubts on this score, I recommend 
study of the recent Commerce Department report entitled ``Global Steel 
Trade.''
  Second, we must recognize that a key objective of many of our trading 
partners in any full trade negotiation is to weaken U.S. trade laws, 
including our antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard regimes. 
It is an iron law of international trade negotiations and the 
implementation of international trade agreements--that, if the trade 
laws are ``on the table,'' they will be weakened. Is there any doubt 
that the antidumping and countervailing duty laws were weakened in the 
Uruguay Round negotiations? Is there any doubt that we see more 
evidence of this weakening every day? Has the trade representative ever 
prevailed at the World Trade Organization in defending U.S. 
implementation of U.S. trade law? The United States simply must not 
once again enter into an open-ended negotiating round in which 
countries such as Japan, Korea, and the European Union are able to work 
in concert to eviscerate the framework of fair trade. Equally 
important, we cannot permit any international tribunal to interpret and 
to apply the trade laws of the United States.
  Third, in addition to including strong labor and environmental 
protections in all trade agreements, we must adopt and enforce policies 
to attack hidden and non-tariff barriers and to effectively counter or 
challenge foreign subsidies for research, development, and exports. For 
example, we must do more to address the manner in which producers in 
many countries are able to control distribution in their home markets 
and thereby shut out their U.S. competitors. The current trade 
liberalization approach limits the ability of the United States to use 
import restrictions to ensure fair trade in our markets while giving 
mercantilist foreign countries virtually a free hand in excluding 
selected U.S. exports from their markets. In light of the record U.S. 
trade deficit, this imbalance can no longer be tolerated.
  One last thought for Mr. Zoellick: The 106th Congress passed a joint 
resolution calling on the President to request an investigation of the 
steel industry under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974. Such an 
investigation is necessary because of the crisis conditions I alluded 
to--total imports for 2000 approached the record levels set during 
1998, prices for many steel products are at record lows, and many 
companies are in bankruptcy. On January 19, 2001, in a letter to the 
Chairman of the International Trade Commission, then-President Clinton 
stated that ``our analysis of the current and prospective import 
situation and recent events in the steel industry lead us to believe 
that Section 201 relief may be warranted in the near future.'' Mr. 
Zoellick, our steel companies and steel workers cannot wait for the 
``near future.'' The crisis is now. The remedies are at hand. Let us 
not tarry!
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of 
Robert Zoellick to be United States Trade Representative.
  I know Mr. Zoellick personally and am confident that he has the 
background and skills to do an outstanding job. He is an exceptionally 
bright and talented individual with a broad understanding of trade 
policy and a strong commitment to public service. President Bush 
deserves real credit for this selection.
  Robert Zoellick has an extensive background that should prepare him 
well for his new position. During the administration of former 
President George H. W. Bush, he served as Deputy Chief of Staff at the 
White House, as Counselor of the Department of State and Undersecretary 
of State for Economics, and as the President's personal representative 
for the G-7 Economic Summits in 1991 and 1992. In the 1980's he also 
served at the Department of the Treasury in various positions, 
including counselor to Secretary James A. Baker III.
  Mr. Zoellick is now poised to play an important role in the current 
Bush administration and could have a real impact on the future of our 
economy. In my view, it is critical that we continue working hard to 
open up foreign markets for American businesses, while maintaining a 
strong commitment to environmental protection and labor protections. 
Although it has received little attention, the United States has been 
running very large trade deficits in recent years, and our net foreign 
debt now exceeds $1.5 trillion. This means we are increasingly 
dependent on foreign investors to maintain our economic strength, a 
vulnerability with potentially serious consequences.
  I know that Bob Zoellick will be an aggressive advocate for opening 
up foreign markets. As the same time, I hope that he will work hard at 
forging consensus on the various trade issues that will come before the 
Congress. In particular, I am hopeful that he will work constructively 
with those who want labor and environmental concerns to be addressed 
seriously in international negotiations. I realize that this is a 
controversial area and that President Bush has expressed skepticism 
about incorporating these matters in trade agreements. However, if 
trade policy is going to enjoy strong bipartisan support, as it should, 
the administration will have to compromise.
  Few people would be better prepared to navigate the complex political 
and substantive issues involved with trade policy than Bob Zoellick. I 
believe he will be a highly effective trade representative, and I wish 
him the best of luck in his new position. I am looking forward to 
working with him.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Robert 
Zoellick to be United States Trade Representative. As the world economy 
of the twenty-first century continues to evolve, it is paramount that 
the United States continue to pursue comprehensive international trade, 
commodity, and direct investment policies that create growth and raise 
living standards both at home and abroad. By nominating Robert Zoellick 
for the position of U.S. Trade Representative, USTR, President Bush has 
chosen someone who is eminently qualified to coordinate these policies, 
and I look forward to doing all I can in Congress to support him.
  A respected scholar at Harvard University and former president and 
chief executive officer of the Center for Strategic and International 
Studies, Robert

[[Page 1344]]

is no stranger to public service. He served during President George 
Bush Sr.'s Administration with distinction in variety of important 
posts including Under Secretary of State for Economics, as well as the 
President's personal representative for the G-7 Economic Summits in 
1991. From 1985 to 1988, he served as Counselor to Secretary of 
Treasury James Baker, as well as Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Financial Institutions Policy at Treasury. Indeed, this extensive 
government experience, coupled with his outstanding academic 
credentials make Robert Zoellick a USTR nominee who I am proud to 
support.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to briefly comment on 
the nomination of Robert Zoellick to be United States Trade 
Representative. At the outset, I would first like to commend President 
Bush for choosing a nominee of such high caliber to take on the 
responsibilities demanded of the U.S. Trade Representative. 
Furthermore, I am pleased with the President's decision to keep the 
Trade Representative a Cabinet-level position. This was the right 
decision that reaffirms the United States's role in a global trading 
environment. I fully support Mr. Zoellick's nomination and look forward 
to working with him in the new Administration.
  Mr. President, in a world that has become increasingly interconnected 
through and dependent on trade, a skilled and experienced Trade 
Representative is essential to ensuring that the United States 
maintains it position as a leader in this area. The U.S. Trade 
Representative has the dual responsibilities of fostering continued 
openness with traditionally underserved markets while at the same time 
safeguarding the well-being of American businesses and workers. I 
believe Mr. Zoellick's past experience makes him qualified to fulfill 
these obligations.
  After earning both public policy and law degrees at Harvard 
University, Mr. Zoellick went on to serve as a Deputy Assistant 
Secretary at the Department of the Treasury during the Reagan 
Administration. He then assumed the position of Under Secretary for 
Economic Policy at the State Department under President George Bush. He 
left public service to serve as the Executive Vice President of Fannie 
Mae and most recently sat as a fellow and board member of the German 
Marshall Fund of the United States.
  Mr. Zoellick assumed a key role in some of the most critical trade 
deals to face the United States in decades. Some of his most notable 
achievements include managing the negotiations over German 
reunification after the fall of the Berlin Wall, fostering compromise 
that led to the creation of World Trade Organization, and negotiating 
approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. President, if, which I assume will be the case, Mr. Zoellick is 
confirmed as U.S. Trade Representative, he would assume stewardship of 
an agency that enjoys one of its strongest positions in its history. I 
would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the great strides made under 
the former U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky, Deputy U.S. 
Trade Representative Richard Fisher, and their team.
  In the last two years alone, we have passed legislation that created 
new trading opportunities in Sub-Saharan Africa and enhanced the 
Caribbean Basin Initiative program. And one of the most monumental 
trade achievements in recent history was the accession agreement 
reached between the U.S. and China with respect to its entry into the 
WTO and the granting of Permanent Normal Trade Relations status to 
China just last fall. These were both landmark agreements that have 
significantly altered the face of U.S.-Chinese trade relations. More 
importantly, they are accomplishments we can and should build upon.
  And while we should take pride in these achievements, we must not 
lose sight of the tremendous tasks that still lie ahead, and upon being 
confirmed as Trade Representative, Mr. Zoellick will be faced with a 
number of unresolved trade matters that, in my opinion, will require 
his immediate attention.
  First, we must continue to ensure that China adheres to the 
concessions it made in its WTO Accession Agreement with the United 
States in order to guarantee that American workers and industries gain 
the full benefits negotiated in this historic agreement.
  Secondly, the Trade Representative will need to formulate solutions 
to our on-going troubles with the European Union (EU), specifically in 
regard to the beef-hormone and banana disputes. Moreover, the WTO is 
scheduled to rule on the EU's case against the U.S. with respect to 
foreign sales corporations. A ruling against the U.S. in this matter 
could result in almost $4 billion in retaliatory tariffs being levied 
against American goods that could financially ruin businesses and cost 
countless American jobs. Resolution of this issue must be a priority.
  Finally, one of Mr. Zoellick's greatest challenges will be working 
with Congress to gain approval of fast-track trading authority for the 
President. This authority will take on increased importance at the 
upcoming Summit of the Americas in Quebec in April where, President 
Bush has stated, he will make the creation of a Free Trade Agreement of 
the Americas his number-one priority. Allowing the President to assure 
other world leaders that he will gain this authority will only increase 
the prospects of this agreement becoming reality.
  And while I support both of these initiatives, I do so with the 
additional belief that worker rights and environmental protections must 
be included within any fast-track legislation.
  I am disappointed that President Bush has publicly voiced his 
opposition to these provisions as a part of trade agreements.
  It is my hope that Mr. Zoellick will show some flexibility on these 
issues and be mindful of their importance in future negotiations. 
Absent these safeguards, it is my opinion that the President will face 
a difficult time obtaining the support needed to secure this critical 
trading authority.
  In closing, Mr. President, I have long supported efforts to open the 
doors of trade to new markets. Expanded trade improves the lives of 
American workers by providing better paying jobs and increased markets 
for American goods. Ultimately, this translates into a stronger 
national economy.
  I also believe that it can serve the purpose of slowly transforming 
countries that have been socially and politically intolerant into 
countries that recognize the rights of their own citizens. Ultimately, 
ruling by respect rather than fear is in their own best economic 
interest.
  At the same time, I firmly believe that every effort must be made to 
balance the economic benefits of free trade with the needs of American 
businesses and workers and to vigorously enforce existing trade laws 
against unfair trading practices. The U.S. Trade Representative must be 
unwavering in this regard.
  Mr. Zoellick has agreed to undertake this critical balancing act, and 
I believe his record as a fair and capable negotiator will serve him 
well as he assumes this post. Again, I wish to reiterate my support for 
his nomination as U.S. Trade Representative and urge my colleagues to 
do likewise.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, ``A foreign policy wunderkind,'' ``Baker's 
second brain,'' ``a resume so impressive it might be mistaken for a 
parody of overachievement,'' ``the most impressive thinker of my time 
in government,'' ``the best-prepared guy in the room,'' a man whose 
``board memberships read like the directory of the internationalist 
establishment,'' one whose friends possess ``almost a cultlike 
admiration for his intelligence, hard work, and integrity''--such 
praise for Bob Zoellick demonstrates the high expectations for his 
tenure as the United States Trade Representative. I share these hopes 
for his leadership of our ambition to expand free trade and restore 
America's rightful place at the forefront of global trade 
liberalization.
  Unlike previous trade representatives, who often possessed more 
narrow legal backgrounds, Bob's range of experience at the Departments 
of Treasury and State, in the White House, and with organizations like 
NATO, the

[[Page 1345]]

WTO, and the G-7 grant him unusual insight into the role of trade 
within the framework of America's broader engagement with the world. 
Bob's talents, combined with the enthusiasm and purity of his belief in 
free trade as a force to advance American interests and increase 
prosperity around the globe, suggest that he will serve well President 
Bush's mandate to push forward with a meaningful free trade agenda. If 
personnel is policy, as we often say in Washington, Bob's selection for 
the cabinet-rank trade post foretells important achievements in our 
nation's trade expansion efforts.
  Yet such achievements will not come easily. America's economy, which 
has been the engine of global economic growth, is slowing, and there 
exists no broad-based domestic consensus on the benefits of free trade. 
Japan's economy remains mired in an enduring recession that can be 
ended only by fundamental structural reforms. China's implementation of 
its market-opening obligations under the WTO remains worrisomely 
incomplete. The European Union, where growth has recently accelerated, 
retains significant market distortions that are reflected in its 
continued agricultural protectionism and the array of trade disputes 
with the United States over subjects like hormone-treated beef. The 
economic health of Latin America is mixed, and many African nations 
with tremendous trade potential suffer the pernicious effects of poor 
governance and civil strife. Clearly, Bob has his work cut out for him.
  Given the challenges and opportunities ahead--and the critical role 
of trade to the continued dynamism of our own economy--our nation must, 
to the extent possible, speak with one voice in favor of trade 
expansion. Bob has pledged to work closely with the Congress on such 
priorities as creating a hemispheric free trade zone, providing the 
President with renewed trade-promotion authority, ratifying our 
bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam, locking in free trade with 
partners like Singapore and Jordan, and setting the stage for a new 
round of global trade talks. It is my hope that both parties in 
Congress will work constructively and in good faith with Bob and the 
Administration to advance this ambitious but achievable trade agenda, 
for the benefit of the American people we serve.
  As Bob noted in a ``Foreign Affairs'' article during the campaign, 
``A primary task for the next President of the United States is to 
build public support for a strategy that will shape the world so as to 
protect and promote American interests and values for the next 50 
years. . . . America must capture the dynamism of the era and transform 
its new elements into the economic and security foundations for a 
future system.'' Such an integrated approach, which I strongly endorse, 
requires restoring our nation's leadership in liberalizing global 
trade. I wish Bob the best as he spearheads this effort, upon which 
rests our fondest hopes as a people for prosperity and purpose in the 
world.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider the 
nomination of Robert Zoellick to become the U.S. Trade Representative. 
I will support confirmation of the nomination of Robert Zoellick.
  Given the important contribution of the automotive industry to 
America's economic prosperity and job creation, I wish to flag two 
important automotive trade relationships that I hope will be made a 
priority by USTR designate Zoellick: the United States automotive trade 
relationship with Korea and with Japan.
  I was disappointed to note that Mr. Zoellick was not asked during his 
Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing last week about two trade 
agreements of key interest to the automotive industry: the 1995 
Framework Agreement on Autos and Auto Parts between the United States 
and Japan and a 1998 United States-Korea Auto Market Access MOU. 
Neither have achieved the expected results of opening these markets to 
United States automotive exports. It is time to go back to the table 
and insist on the results we were promised.
  The automotive industry is the largest manufacturing industry in the 
United States representing 3.7 percent of GDP. It ranks first among 
manufacturing industries in R&D expenditures spending over $18 billion 
a year, employs almost 2.5 million Americans and exports more than any 
other industry. This is why it is so important for our USTR and the 
Administration to fight aggressively to allow this industry to compete 
on a fair and level playing field in foreign markets.
  The 1995 Framework Agreement on Autos and Auto Parts between the 
United States and Japan was allowed by the Government of Japan to 
expire at the end of 2000. This is despite the Agreement's failure to 
accomplish its stated objective to significantly expand sales 
opportunities resulting in purchases of foreign parts by Japanese firms 
in Japan and through their transplants in the United States and to 
resolve market access problems for foreign autos and auto parts in 
Japan. The U.S. Government, working closely with the American auto 
parts industry, organized labor and Members of Congress, developed and 
presented a significant proposal for extending and enhancing the 1995 
Agreement. In the closing days of 2000 Japan was even unwilling to 
permit the extension of the existing Agreement which would have allowed 
time for the new Administration to pursue a more substantial five year 
agreement.
  I urge the Bush administration, and Mr. Zoellick in particular, to 
make the renegotiation of a stronger and more effective agreement one 
of its earliest and highest priorities.
  Regarding Korea, despite two separate automotive trade agreements 
between the United States and Korea intended to open Korea's market, we 
now have a rapidly increasing automotive trade imbalance between the 
two countries. Korea exported almost 500,000 vehicles to the United 
States last year but imported only 4,300 foreign vehicles from 
everywhere in the world. Foreign vehicles make up only .32 percent of 
Korea's total vehicle market, making it the most closed market in the 
developed world.
  This is not a level playing field and should not be tolerated. This 
imbalance has occurred despite efforts by United States auto 
manufacturers to make long-term and extensive efforts to increase sales 
in Korea. I urge the administration and Mr. Zoellick to redouble the 
United States efforts to achieve market access progress in Korea, 
especially in urging the Government of Korea to take specific actions 
to reverse the anti-import attitudes and policies that so blatantly 
discriminate against foreign vehicles in Korea.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the nomination of 
Robert Zoellick as the next United States Trade Representative. I think 
that Bob Zoellick has the experience, education, and leadership skills 
to be an outstanding USTR.
  Mr. Zoellick has had a broad range of experience in the executive 
branch, including the Treasury Department, State Department, and the 
White House. Chairman Grassley has detailed his record of 
accomplishment.
  Mr. Zoellick's experience is not just from the view of a government 
administrator. Since 1997, he has held a number of positions with 
private sector firms involved with asset management and capital 
development. This unique combination of public sector and private 
sector experience will prove vital to his performance as USTR.
  As trade becomes more important to the economy of Utah and the United 
States as a whole, it is imperative that we have senior officials that 
understand the significance of free and fair trade. And it is critical 
that they can view trade issues with a vision of the attendant foreign 
policy, national security, and economic policy considerations that are 
at stake. I think Bob Zoellick can see the world from many 
perspectives.
  The United States faces a number of key trade issues in the next few 
years. It will be a great advantage to American workers and American 
consumers if we can create a bi-partisan U.S. trade policy.
  We need to look at the issue of granting new trade promotion 
authority to

[[Page 1346]]

Ambassador Zoellick. But fast track authority alone should not replace 
the hard work and effort to forge bi-partisan support for U.S. trade 
initiatives.
  My experience on the Judiciary Committee has taught me that 
intellectual property issues will play an increasingly important role 
in the international economy. We must make sure that the creative 
efforts of those who produce software, entertainment such as music and 
movies and breakthrough drugs and medical devices get the benefit of 
TRIPS implementation and enforcement. Frankly, we need to get better 
across the board at enforcing the trade agreements that we negotiate.
  We also need to resist any efforts to impose unnecessary barriers on 
the emerging Internet economy. For example, we must work to see that 
computer downloads are not unduly hindered through tariffs or technical 
barriers.
  I want to re-enforce many of the comments that my friend from West 
Virginia. Senator Byrd made with respect to the crisis among our 
domestic steel producers. I want to work with Mr. Zoellick and Senator 
O'Neill on the efforts by the Bush Administration to re-energize our 
domestic steel industry. I think at his confirmation hearing that Mr. 
Zoellick made the correct comment to Senator Rockefeller, my other good 
friend from West Virginia, on the potential use of section 201 
authority with respect to steel. We must come up with a comprehensive 
plan to help U.S. producers of steel like Geneva Steel from my state of 
Utah. Part of this plan must focus on foreign dumping and 
countervailing duties.
  At his confirmation hearing, Majority Leader Lott and I raised the 
bananas and beef cases and the use of the carousel rotation of product 
retaliation lists. We can't let the Europeans avoid the consequences 
when the lose WTO cases. Frankly, I think that one of the first things 
this Administration ought to do in the trade area is to follow the law 
we passed last year and immediately implement the carousel system.
  The Korean government's recently announced $2.1 billion bailout of 
Hyundai electronics raises many troubling questions. This development 
may be a direct violation of commitments made to the IMF in 1997. 
Specifically, USTR must examine whether this new bailout program is in 
accordance with the commitments made in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the 
1997 IMF Standby Arrangement addressing, respectively, bank lending 
practices, and government subsidies and tax preferences. I trust that 
USTR will look into this, and I want my colleagues to know that this is 
an issue that I take very seriously. Frankly this government bailout 
must be scrutinized by USTR so that we can be sure that American high 
technology firms like Micron can remain competitive in the 
international marketplace.
  I am confident that Bob Zoellick can work effectively with Commerce 
Secretary Evans and other key Administration officials to bring the 
American public the promise of free and fair trade. We need to open new 
trading opportunities, but we also need to enforce U.S. trade laws and 
ensure compliance with international trade agreements.
  Many believe--and I believe--that the Office of the United States 
Trade Representative is the best governmental trade organization in the 
world. We ask Mr. Zoellick to lead and inspire this very strong agency 
to perform even better. The citizens of Utah and throughout the United 
States have much at stake in the performance of USTR.
  As a Senator who believes in the long-term benefits to America of 
free and fair trade, I plan to vote for Robert Zoellick and stand ready 
to work with him and my colleagues to build a strong, bipartisan trade 
policy.
  Mr. President, I thank all Senators and I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I now yield to my good friend from North 
Dakota, Senator Dorgan, for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and my colleague from 
Montana, Senator Baucus.
  Mr. President, I intend to vote for Bob Zoellick to be the U.S. Trade 
Representative. I am not a big fan of the U.S. Trade Representative's 
office--never have been--under Republican or Democratic 
administrations. My view is that our trade policy in this country is a 
mess. It has gotten worse, not better. We are headed towards a $440 
billion merchandise trade deficit.
  In fact, it might be useful to show a chart that describes what has 
happened to our trade deficits. It shows that since 1993 our 
merchandise deficit has ballooned from $136 billion to over $440 
billion. All the Republicans and all the Democrats that give us 
soothing assurances and say this trade policy of ours is working really 
well ought to take a look at these deficits, that are ballooning, year 
after year after year after year.
  I want to talk a little about why I think it is so important, as we 
vote on the confirmation of Mr. Zoellick, we need to expect something 
different from the U.S. Trade Representative's office. You could put a 
blindfold on and listen to both Republican and Democratic 
administrations over last 20 years, Republican and Democratic stewards 
at USTR, and you couldn't tell the difference between them. It wouldn't 
matter. It is all the same, all the same trade policy: Negotiate 
another agreement and hope things get better. However, what really 
happens is, they negotiate another agreement and things get worse.
  I am told that we have, in the last 8 years, negotiated 304 trade 
agreements. I am also told, that some of the agreements cannot even be 
located in the offices of the Trade Representative, let alone get them 
enforced. At the time when we have negotiated 304 trade agreements, our 
trade deficit has increased over 300 percent.
  Let me show you what bothers me from time to time about our current 
trade strategy. Let me do it in terms of T-bone steaks. I have a chart 
I want to share with you.
  We negotiated a trade agreement with Japan in 1989 on the issue of 
beef. The U.S. could not successfully get beef into the country of 
Japan. So our negotiators went to Japan, and they negotiated really 
hard, and they got an agreement, and then they had a big celebration. 
They had banquets, and, Lord, they had headlines in the newspapers: 
``We have reached an Agreement with Japan.'' Good for them. God bless 
them.
  Now 12 years later, we are getting more beef into Japan. Good for us. 
Do you know what the tariff is on every pound of beef that goes into 
Japan? Incidentally, these are T-bone steaks on the chart. As this 
chart shows, there is a 38.5-percent tariff on every pound of American 
beef going into Japan. This is 12 years after the great agreement with 
Japan, a country, incidentally, that has over a $70 billion merchandise 
trade surplus with us, or to say it another way, a U.S. deficit with 
Japan.
  By what justification does anyone who negotiates this kind of trade 
agreement stand here and say to American producers: We really scored a 
victory for you this time? These people obviously did not wear jerseys 
that said ``USA'' when they negotiated this one. They said: We will 
agree, after a phase-in, to a 50-percent tariff that will be reduced 
over time. Great, except it has a snap-back provision which says, the 
more you get in, the higher the tariff will be. So guess what. Twelve 
years later, we have a 38.5-percent tariff on every single pound of 
beef going to Japan. It is a failure. Not only do people not care about 
it, most people don't know about it; and nobody is going to do much 
about it.
  If not T-bone steaks, what about cars? We just finished a trade 
agreement with China. We have over a $70 billion merchandise trade 
deficit with

[[Page 1347]]

China, and it is growing rapidly. Here in the Senate, we did not have a 
vote on the bilateral trade agreement with China. If we did vote, I 
would have voted no. We had a vote on PNTR, but we did not have a vote 
on the bilateral trade agreement. We had negotiators go to China, and 
once again, apparently, they left their jerseys at home, the ones who 
say: ``USA''--``Here is what I am negotiating for. I want a good deal 
for us.''
  Our negotiators go to China and negotiate an agreement. At the end of 
the agreement, after a long phase-in, here is what we have done on 
automobiles. We have said: Yes, there are probably 1.2 billion people 
over there, and if they are able to increase their standard of living, 
at some point they will become more affluent and want to start driving 
cars. If that happens there will be more automobile trade between the 
United States and China. What we will agree to, China, we will grant 
you access to our market at a 2.5-percent tariff on any cars, and we 
will allow you to have a tariff that is 10 times higher--25 percent--on 
any U.S. automobiles going to China.
  What on Earth are we thinking about? Here is a country that has a 
huge surplus with us, or we have a huge deficit with them. We negotiate 
an agreement with them and say: Oh, yes, by the way, we will allow you 
to impose tariffs on automobiles 10 times higher than those we impose 
on you.
  Time after time, there are examples of the incompetence of these 
negotiators, let alone the fact that once we get these agreements, as 
bad as they are for this country, they are not enforced. Do you know 
how many people we have enforcing our trade agreements? Yes, even the 
bad trade agreements with China? Seven. There used to be 10; now there 
are 7. China has done little to comply with any of our trade 
agreements. So now we have gone and negotiated a new bilateral 
agreement that is poorly designed and at the same time decreased the 
number of people monitoring and investigating how China is not playing 
by the rules. Our staff for China went from 10 to 7.
  At some point we have to realize, that ballooning trade deficits we 
currently have in this country, are unhealthy for our country, our 
future and our economy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, might I inquire how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 25 minutes 7 
seconds remaining. The Senator from Iowa has 32 minutes 24 seconds.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana. I noticed 
on the floor the presence of my good friend and colleague from 
Louisiana. It was actually her idea that drew me over here. I am glad 
she is here. I will try and be brief in my remarks and then defer to 
the Senator from Louisiana to share some of her thoughts.
  Let me say, first of all, I am a strong supporter of Bob Zoellick to 
be the new U.S. Trade Representative. I think he will make a very fine 
Trade Representative. We worked very closely together over the years on 
other matters. He was at the State Department. I know him to be 
tremendously thoughtful, a good listener, one who is not afraid of new 
ideas and is attentive to a wide diversity of interests dealing with 
some of the issues affecting some of the very regions of the world I 
will address some remarks to, and that is Central America and Latin 
America back in the 1980s.
  So I am a strong supporter of Bob's. He will do a great job. The 
President is lucky to have his willing services in this administration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  (The remarks of Ms. Landrieu and Mr. Dodd pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 260 are located in today's Record under ``Statements 
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields to the Senator?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I don't think I have authority to yield 
time, but I think Senator Baucus would be comfortable yielding 10 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for 
her work.
  Mr. President, I support Mr. Zoellick. I am not here to oppose his 
nomination at all, but I would like to express my great reservations 
about the direction of our trade policy. Unless I am mistaken, I think 
I heard the majority leader today out on the floor saying that we need 
to, of course, have the trade but we need for it to be fair trade. I 
was pleased to hear his very strong remarks.
  I guess it was about maybe a month ago that I was on the Iron Range 
of Minnesota with the taconite workers at a gathering at Hoyt Lakes. 
There were about 1,000 workers there, although 1,300 of them have lost 
their jobs. The LTV Steel Company closed down. They shut down the 
taconite operation. Fourteen-hundred workers on the Iron Range lost 
their jobs. Other workers, by the way, are being laid off at other 
mines. It is not just those workers. It is the subcontractors. It is 
their families. It is the people in the community.
  I never mind saying this because it is just true. Even though you 
talk about one region of the State, you never want to act as if you 
don't care about other regions. Northeastern Minnesota is like a second 
home to Sheila and I. This is where our campaign started in 1989. They 
supported me when no one thought I ever had a chance. These are people 
with the greatest work ethic in the world. They are just incredible 
people. There are a lot of broken lives, broken dreams, and potentially 
broken families in northeastern Minnesota.
  I always go to one high school just to stay in touch with the 
students there. I have been there about three or four times in the last 
year or two. The discussions with the students are so poignant. They 
want to know if they can afford college. They want to know what is 
going to happen to their mom or dad, and whether or not there will be 
any jobs for them. These are good jobs that pay probably $65,000 a 
year, counting health benefits. There are not a lot of other jobs such 
as that. Of course, there will be a future because when you have people 
with such a strong work ethic and who are so self-reliant and self-
sufficient it will happen.
  But I want to say this on the floor of the Senate. When I was at this 
gathering, I was looking out over about 1,000 workers. And I thought to 
myself: These are industrial workers. All too often in our trade policy 
and all too often on the floor of the Senate and on the floor of the 
House of Representatives, they have been out of sight and out of mind. 
I could add the autoworkers to the steelworkers, and a lot of 
industrial workers as well.
  In this particular case, the import surge of steel--in the case of 
taconite workers, it is semifinished steel--slab steel from Brazil, 
from South Korea, from Russia, and from other countries way below our 
cost of production has essentially put them out of work. These steel 
workers on the Iron Range of Minnesota want to know where they fit into 
this international economy. I say this to Mr. Zoellick--and I will say 
it every day for the rest of my time in the Senate--why can't we have a 
trade policy that, of course, recognizes the importance of trade but 
also works for working people in our country? If it is true that we 
live in an international economy--yes, it is true--then if you care 
about human rights, you have to care about it not only in our country 
but other countries. If you care about the right of people to join a 
union and make decent wages for their families--you have to care about 
that, not only in our country but other countries as well--if you care 
about religious freedom, you have to care about this in our country but 
other countries as well. If you care about the environment, you have to 
care about it in an international context. But from NAFTA to GATT to 
WTO to efforts to have fast track here and there, I have not seen

[[Page 1348]]

an effort to really talk about a fair trade policy.
  I am not an isolationist. I am an internationalist. My dad was born 
in Odessa, Ukraine. He fled persecution in Russia. He spoke 10 
languages fluently. I grew up in a family where there was no other 
choice but to be an internationalist. But there has to be some new 
rules that come with this international economy.
  This has to be an international economy and global economy that works 
for steelworkers--workers for autos, workers for family farmers, the 
environment, and human rights. That is not the case now. Lord, I have 
given enough speeches on the Senate floor about human rights violations 
in China and other countries as well. I will not do that today.
  I make this appeal to Mr. Zoellick and appeal to my colleagues that, 
whatever we do, let's try to figure out some additional steps we can 
take that will give some assurance to hard-working people in our 
country so they don't get the short end of the stick and get spit out 
of the economy because we have no level playing field.
  That is what has happened to these steelworkers on the Iron Range. 
That is exactly what has happened to these taconite workers.
  I think Senator Dayton would say the same thing. We are desperately 
trying, with Congressman Oberstar and others, to get trade adjustments 
to people. We hope the taconite workers fit into that. We want to talk 
about section 201, and the Rockefeller bill deals with the whole 
problem of unfair trade in steel, and whether or not we have to say to 
the other countries we can't deal with these import surges, especially 
if we think it is a dumping of steel, or semifinished steel well below 
the cost of production; especially when you talk about countries where 
people do not get decent wages, where there are no OSHA or any 
workplace safety rules.
  There has to be a way we can have some competition and a trade policy 
that makes sure steelworkers on the Iron Range of Minnesota and family 
farmers and people who care about the environment and people who care 
about human rights figure in. I think those industrial workers are 
simply off the radar screen when it comes to politics in the Nation's 
Capital today.
  There are two Senators on the floor: Senator Grassley from Iowa, who 
is chair of the Finance Committee, one of the best Senators in the 
Senate--he is wrong on every issue but he is one of the best Senators 
in the Senate--and Senator Baucus, who is also ranking member of the 
Finance Committee, who is very skillful. I say to both of my colleagues 
and other Senators, I hope maybe this year, since we are 50/50, and we 
will have a lot of passionate debates, there are certain areas where 
maybe we can work together. Maybe there are some things we can do to 
try to make this trade policy work a little better for some of the 
people in our country and in this particular case for some of the 
steelworkers on the Iron Range and some other people in my State much 
less other States. That is the appeal I make today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.


                             Grant Aldonas

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise for a very special purpose 
relating to the work of the Senate Finance Committee and the aspect of 
our work that deals with international trade and the high caliber of 
staff who have been on the International Trade Subcommittee over a long 
period of time. But I take special note of one of our staff people, our 
chief trade counsel, Grant Aldonas. He is right here.
  He is going to soon be leaving the position that he has with our 
committee. It is going to be a loss for our committee, and particularly 
for me as a new chairman. It is going to be a tremendous loss because 
people of his caliber who are so successful in the private sector and 
are willing to come back into public service are few and far between. 
He is one who has done that. He has done it for 3\1/2\ years as the 
Finance Committee's top trade lawyer. He served Senator Roth before me 
with the greatest of professionalism and diligence; he has done a very 
good job.
  Grant has left his mark on some of the Senate's most significant 
trade policy initiatives--the passage of the Trade and Development Act 
of 2000, and the passage of the bill that has been on everybody's mind 
over the last 3 or 4 years giving permanent normal trade relations 
status to the great country of China. This was chief among all the work 
that he did for that period of time on the Senate Finance Committee.
  I think I can speak for members of the Senate Finance Committee on 
both sides of the aisle. They have come to rely upon Grant's skill and 
judgment. Even though he is very skillful, judgment is the greatest 
asset that he has when dealing with the policies of international 
trade, not only from the domestic standpoint but from the international 
standpoint. Judgment with good common sense is very important.
  I have already referred to his success in the private sector. That is 
because he is a good lawyer. He is also a good public servant and just 
a plain good person.
  I wish you, Grant, and your wife Pam all the best in your new life 
beyond the Hill. Thank you very much for your services.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield myself such time as I consume.
  I join in the remarks of our distinguished chairman to Grant Aldonas. 
I am fond of saying I believe the most noble human endeavor is 
service--service to church, to family, to the community, State and 
Nation; whatever makes the most sense for each one of us graced to be 
on the face of this Earth particularly public service--more 
particularly, public service where you don't get your name in the 
headlines or the evening news, public servants who don't have huge egos 
but are working for the country in the best interests of the United 
States of America and all Americans. Grant certainly is in that 
category.
  Grant is a guy who works behind the scenes to get results. Again, it 
is not headlines. It is talking to all the Senators, the Senators' 
staffs, the administration, whoever it is he must talk to in order to 
get a result, legislation, something passed for the sake of the people.
  He is a great bipartisan kind of a guy. He is particulary effective 
because of his prior service, whether USTR, the State Department, or 
private sector.
  I do think his background as a lawyer helps. The understanding of the 
law helps one be effective. There are very bright and fine ways to get 
around that stuff, but generally I think a legal background is quite 
helpful.
  Whether it is China, PNTR, or trade bills of Africa, Caribbean, Grant 
has been there--a true professional, calm, even tempered, smart, 
creative thinking, diligent, hard working, focused on getting results.
  I underline the point the chairman made; namely, of Grant's sense of 
judgment and his common sense, a commodity which is probably one of the 
most important a person can have. We will miss you, Grant. We know you 
will go on to bigger and better things. We also know in the real sense 
you will not have left. We will still be able to call you, seek your 
advice, and wish you the very best.
  In the remaining minutes, I thank the Senators who have spoken. They 
make very good points on which I know the administration and Mr. 
Zoellick will focus.
  How we bring all the components together for coherent consensus in 
developing a trade policy for America is extremely difficult. It 
includes business interests of America, labor interests in America, and 
environmental interests in America. It includes all the Americans who 
think they are left out of trade and the benefits of trade agreements. 
Companies do pretty well in some places and employees wonder where they 
fit in to all of this. We have to work harder to develop that 
consensus. I very much look forward with

[[Page 1349]]

the chairman and people such as Grant and others in the administration 
to develop that consensus. Frankly, we have no other choice. We have to 
find that consensus to be effective and serve our people.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to say a few things about the 
nominee and about the larger issue of trade.
  I commend my distinguished ranking member for his comments earlier 
and those who have already expressed themselves. It goes without 
saying, and it ought to be emphasized, that Robert Zoellick is going to 
be an excellent Trade Representative. He has broad Government 
experience and a record of achievement that is enviable. His experience 
in the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the White House 
is a clear demonstration of his commitment to public service and public 
policy.
  The USTR role is one that I think is an increasingly important role 
in the Federal Government, particularly given the increasing importance 
of trade and globalization generally.
  I am concerned about reports that consideration was given to 
downgrading the position from its Cabinet rank, and I am very pleased 
that the Cabinet rank in this case will be retained.
  As I look back over the 106th Congress, one could argue that some of 
our greatest achievements were in the field of trade. We enacted the 
Caribbean Basin and African trade bill. We met our obligation under the 
WTO regarding FSC. We granted permanent normal trading relations to 
China, paving the way for the most populous country in the world to 
join the global rules-based trading system.
  Now we have a chance to build upon the achievements and the record of 
the 106th Congress by promoting the economic, national, and foreign 
policy interests of the United States in a global economy.
  The United States is uniquely positioned to benefit, in my view, from 
increased globalization. First, we have the most productive economy in 
the world. Second, we have a comparative advantage in an increasingly 
information-based global economic framework.
  Globalization improves productivity as countries specialize in areas 
of comparative advantage and puts downward pressure on prices consumers 
face. We have seen examples of that over and over.
  The promotion of international understanding and the reduction of 
international conflict is critical if this is going to happen in the 
months and years ahead.
  The freer flow of goods, capital, people, and ideas around the world 
creates interdependence and understanding that both can help lower the 
probability of conflict and raise the cost of conflict.
  There is an economic cost to a nation being ostracized from the 
global economy. Economic liberalization advances key foreign policy 
goals such as increased economic freedom and reduced poverty. So the 
stakes could not be much higher for us or for the world as we create 
this global framework and recognize the advantages of participating in 
it.
  We also have to recognize that participation in and of itself is not 
all necessarily positive. There is a lack of domestic consensus on 
expanded trade and globalization, and as we consider all of the public 
policy choices we will face in the 107th Congress, I hope we work to 
try to build a better consensus, one we did not have in all occasions 
last year.
  We start building that better consensus by recognizing that 
globalization can inflict costs on certain groups, and those costs need 
to be addressed.
  Workers in import-competing countries may face downward wage pressure 
and job loss. In a recent study, ``Americans on Globalization'' the 
author, Steven Kull, found that people would be much more supportive of 
increased globalization if the government did more to help people who 
lose out through trade. I believe that is true. I do not think there is 
any question that if we could find ways with which to address that 
concern, a consensus could be more the reality than it is today.
  Fully 66 percent of respondents agreed with the following statements: 
I favor free trade, and I believe it is necessary for the government to 
have programs to help workers who lose their jobs.
  That is all they seem to be asking: the realization that there are 
people who get hurt as this new infrastructure gets established.
  Another 18 percent favored free trade in the absence of such help, 
while 14 percent opposed it with or without the help. We have 66 
percent of the people who say they favor free trade so long as we 
address the problems of free trade. We need to work together to do that 
to address those problems.
  Our challenge is to build that consensus on trade policy in a global 
economy, not only in this country but around the world.
  I look forward to working with Bob Zoellick and my colleagues on the 
challenge we face in doing that constructively and successfully.
  There are some key elements, in my view, for building that consensus. 
First, I believe one of the key and perhaps one of the fundamental 
approaches that will be required is a realization that expanded worker 
adjustment assistance is one way with which to ease the pain and 
address the problem. A more broad-based, flexible, and effective 
adjustment assistance program is clearly needed, and I hope we all can 
accept that realization.
  A smooth transition from displacement back into the workforce is 
important for communities and the overall economy, and such assistance 
is critical to building consensus on moving forward on greater trade 
liberalization.
  Bob Zoellick was a key member of the Trade Deficit Commission. The 
Commission did not agree on the underlying cause of the trade deficit 
or how to remedy it. The only area of broad bipartisan agreement was 
for expanded worker adjustment assistance. I look forward to working 
with Mr. Zoellick in this area. I look forward to recognizing the 
possibility for bipartisan consensus on expanded worker adjustment 
assistance. I hope it will be an integral part of anything we do in the 
longer term with regard to trade policy.
  A second element is increased support and emphasis on lifetime 
learning. A policy that waits until someone loses a job is doomed to 
failure. Over time, the goal has to be to embed the culture with an 
appreciation of learning and upgrading skills throughout one's life, 
and that by doing so, economically and educationally, this new 
construction of lifelong learning can be an integrally important and 
extremely essential part of anything we do to advance the cause of 
world trade.
  Let's recognize that building those learning skills and upgrading 
them throughout life must not be viewed simply as an education issue 
but as a trade issue.
  Third, we must advance labor and environmental standards around the 
world. I believe this has to be done on a bilateral and multilateral 
basis. Recent bilateral trade pacts, such as the one with Jordan, have 
begun to make progress in this critical area. But there is so much more 
that needs to be done. We recognized it in the bilateral arrangement 
with Jordan. We ought to recognize it in any new bilateral arrangement. 
But, clearly, we have to recognize it in multilateral efforts as well.
  We recognize how difficult it is. We recognize how challenging. We 
recognize how divisive. We recognize how much debate, and in some ways 
confrontation, has occurred over issues relating to labor and 
environmental standards. But we also must recognize that if we are 
going to address increased consensus, we must address this issue.
  We also must make sure that our trade laws work and are perceived as

[[Page 1350]]

fair. Fair trade laws help create an environment that maintains 
consensus for the openness we all seek in the first place. We have to 
maintain vigilance to ensure that laws are perceived as fair both 
inside and outside the country. Frankly, we have not always done a good 
job at that.
  The steel industry is one such industry. Despite substantial 
investment and modernization, steel has faced repeated pressure from 
dumped steel all over the world. We have to do a better job.
  We have to also understand the importance of making the WTO work 
better. Greater transparency and avenues for participation are needed. 
In the United States, we must advance those reforms.
  We have to help poor countries. Greater globalization holds great 
promise for further reducing poverty in poor areas. But the United 
States and other rich countries need to continue to help poor countries 
participate in the WTO, and the trading system generally, and be 
mindful that poor countries often seem to believe that globalization is 
being imposed on them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
  So I look forward to working, on a bipartisan basis, on all of these 
challenges. I look forward to working with the soon-to-be-confirmed 
USTR and with my colleagues. As I talked a moment ago about steel and 
dumping, there is an array of dumping and serious imbalances in trade 
with our European and Canadian allies with regard to agriculture that 
also must be addressed--whether it is meat or agriculture in a number 
of ways, or whether it is the New Softwood Lumber Agreement with 
Canada.
  The Softwood Lumber Agreement with Canada expires in a few short 
months. There is a major risk of a flood of imports entering our market 
at a time when low timber prices already have led to mill shutdowns and 
closures. This will be one of the first issues that Mr. Zoellick will 
have to face. I share Senator Baucus' concern, as he has taken a 
leadership role in addressing this matter.
  We need a new agreement with all stakeholders at the table. We need 
to address agriculture with all producers, processors, and traders at 
the table.
  We need to understand the implications of the imbalances, the 
dumping, and the serious problems that we face in agriculture today as 
a result of unfair trading practices in agriculture. That has to be 
addressed and put on the table.
  We have to work towards a consensus, as I said a moment ago, on labor 
and the environment. I hope we can find common ground on those issues 
as well.
  The President has made a strong nomination. I know my colleagues will 
be as supportive of this nominee as I am. I hope and expect it will be 
an overwhelming vote. But I also hope and expect that this is not the 
end but the beginning of the creation of an even more balanced trade 
policy with more consensus on international trade and globalization, 
and a realization that that consensus depends on how effectively we 
address myriad challenges that we have not addressed successfully to 
date. I look forward to working with our nominee and with my colleagues 
in that regard.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I intend to vote for Mr. Robert Zoellick 
for U.S. Trade Representative. I believe he brings excellent 
credentials to this position. I do believe the new President, President 
George W. Bush, is entitled to discretion but, in any event, this is a 
qualified man. I would like to take a moment or two to talk about the 
enforcement of U.S. trade laws, especially as they relate to a very 
serious situation in my State with respect to the steel industry.
  Steel has been victimized in the United States by illegal trade 
practices, trade practices which violate U.S. law and trade practices 
which violate international law.
  We have had a surge of dumping in the United States which has cost 
the steel workers, in the past two decades, a reduction in employment 
from close to half a million steel workers to now less than 160,000 
workers, and a situation where many steel corporations today are on the 
verge of bankruptcy.
  We need to see to it that dumping is not permitted in this country. 
Simply stated: Dumping is where steel, for example, is sold in the 
United States at a lower price than it is sold in the country from 
which it is exported.
  I have introduced legislation in the past and intend to reintroduce 
it this year which would provide for a private right of action, which 
would enable the corporation or the injured workers and the union to go 
to Federal court and to get injunctive relief. That relief can be 
obtained very promptly.
  It is possible, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to get a 
temporary restraining order on an ex parte basis on the filing of 
affidavits--there has to be a hearing within 5 days, evidence can be 
put into the record, equity actions can be tried very promptly, and 
that is an effective way to see to it that U.S. trade laws are enforced 
and that they are consistent with international trade laws.
  Last year we legislated on a matter on a bill introduced by Senator 
DeWine of Ohio and backed by quite a number of us in the Senate steel 
caucus, a caucus which I chair, with the cochair being Senator Jay 
Rockefeller of West Virginia. Then through the leadership of Senator 
Robert Byrd of West Virginia, with my concurrence in the Appropriations 
Committee, we put that bill into effect last year which provides that 
where duties are imposed for violations of U.S. trade laws, that those 
duties are paid to the injured parties instead of going into the U.S. 
Treasury.
  Obviously, it is desirable to have funds go into the Treasury, but 
where it can be ascertained that the illegal foreign trade practices 
resulted from a violation of U.S. trade law and can be traceable to 
damages to specific companies and individuals, that is where those 
duties ought to be paid.
  A question has arisen as to whether the United States will fight to 
retain that legislation against complaints by some of the foreign 
countries where infractions have been found. I do hope our new Trade 
Representative will enforce that legislation which was passed by the 
Congress and was signed by the President under an appropriations bill 
last year.
  I make these comments because U.S. jobs, U.S. industrial interests 
ought not to be sacrificed for foreign policy or for defense policy. 
Not too long ago, when we were anxious to back up the Russian economy, 
we permitted tremendous dumping of steel by Russia in the United 
States. While I am concerned about the stability of the Russian 
economy, I am candidly more concerned about the stability of the 
Pennsylvania economy and the U.S. economy. But fair is fair. When the 
laws are on the books, they ought to be enforced and they ought not to 
be sacrificed for collateral U.S. interests on foreign policy or on 
defense policy.
  I make these comments with the hope that our new Trade Representative 
will be a vigorous enforcer of U.S. trade laws and that my colleagues 
will consider the legislation, which I will introduce later in this 
session, which will provide for that private right of action.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page 1351]]

  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Robert B. Zoellick to be United States Trade Representative?
  The yeas and nays are ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) and 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 9 Ex.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Breaux
     Inouye
       
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________