[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21358-21359]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           LOOKING PAST DOHA

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the upcoming WTO 
meeting in Doha. I want to express my very serious concerns about the 
direction I believe these negotiations are heading.
  Let me start with the area with which I have the most serious 
concern; that is, protecting U.S. trade laws. Enforcement of our trade 
laws is one area where the administration and the Congress have 
recently worked very closely together.
  On issues such as softwood lumber and steel, Congress and the 
administration have worked together to ensure that our companies and 
workers are protected from unfair trade practices. It has been working 
well.
  Recent lumber decisions by the National Trade Commission and by the 
Department of Commerce, as well as the free trade decision on steel 
dumping onto U.S. markets, are areas where the administration and the 
Congress worked together on enforcing our trade laws against unfair 
foreign trade practices.
  These cases demonstrate why our trade laws are critical, and also why 
the case for defending trade laws is one that has always been 
bipartisan. Indeed, earlier this year I was joined by 62 of my 
colleagues in a letter urging this administration not to weaken our 
trade laws.
  I again urge the administration to accept the inescapable fact that 
our trade laws are part of the political bargain on trade. Without 
assurances that America has the laws to protect itself against unfair 
foreign trade practices, future trade agreements will be very tough to 
sell.
  Americans are not wanting to buy into a trade agreement if they are 
not assured the trade laws are protected and upheld so we can protect 
ourselves against other countries' foreign trade practices.
  Recent history demonstrates why we should be concerned. Both NAFTA 
and the recent GATT and WTO negotiations have significantly undermined 
enforcement of America's trade laws.
  There have been suggestions that we use WTO negotiations as an 
opportunity to address due process and transparency concerns in the 
application of other countries' trade laws.
  These are problems of compliance with existing WTO rules and not 
problems requiring us to revisit the rules themselves.
  Indeed, our existing international rules are constantly under attack. 
Countries are now trying to achieve through litigation what they failed 
to achieve in previous negotiations.
  Remember that our trade laws are WTO legal. They conform with and are 
consistent with the principles and the rulings of WTO. We are not 
trying to do anything unfair. We are just trying to be fair and make 
sure we are protected.
  Realizing that many of our trading partners want to weaken our trade 
laws, I was quite surprised to read that the draft declaration 
indicated a willingness to renegotiate these rules. This is the draft 
declaration looking toward Doha.
  Why should we do this? What do we gain? Where is the affirmative 
agenda?
  At a minimum, the United States should be seeking to address the 
underlying market distortions that cause dumping and that cause other 
countries to subsidize. We should be trying to correct the erroneous 
WTO decisions that have been handed down for the last several years. 
Yet all the draft declaration indicates is that we will engage in a 
wholesale renegotiation of these rules.
  I find that very disturbing. I hope our trading partners realize that 
when it comes to weakening our trade laws through further negotiation 
they will face stiff, unyielding, and bipartisan opposition in the 
Congress.
  I am also concerned about the declaration's environment and labor 
provisions.
  I was happy to see the reaffirmation of our commitment to the 
sustainable development, and that the WTO will increase its focus on 
the relationship between multilateral environmental

[[Page 21359]]

agreements and trade rules. Both these issues deserve even more 
attention.
  I am concerned, however, about the comments from our negotiators that 
these are ``Europe's issues.''
  Sustainable development is not a concern of Europe alone. I hope the 
lessons of Seattle have not somehow been lost on us. These are American 
concerns--more so now than ever.
  So too is the issue of labor and trade. The declaration makes the 
mistake of suggesting that labor standards are--and I quote--``social 
issues,'' appropriately handled by the ILO.
  I want to be clear on this point. We have now turned the corner on 
these issues. As the overwhelming support for the recent United States-
Jordan Free Trade Agreement makes clear, environment and labor 
standards are now a part of the trade dialog. They are here. We passed 
it; that is, we passed legislation which affirms it.
  Finally, I want to express my strong support for Taiwan's accession 
into the WTO--as a full member of the WTO. This includes the right to 
challenge the trade practices of China--or any other country--just as 
other members have the right to challenge Taiwan.
  I am concerned about some of the recent reports that China is 
advocating some kind of lesser status for Taiwan. As an independent 
member of the WTO, Taiwan should have, and will have, the same rights 
as every other member. I hope the administration will take a strong 
stand in this regard.
  As we look toward and beyond Doha, I look forward to working with the 
administration. But I also urge our negotiators not to give up the 
store. The goal of launching a new round of negotiations is not an end 
in itself. We must be vigilant in ensuring that we get the best deal 
for our farmers, our workers, and our companies.

                          ____________________