[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10730-10731]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   PRE-AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE STANDARD TRADE NEGOTIATING 
                             AUTHORITY ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, as the United States grapples with an 
historically large trade deficit, and many of our farmers and 
manufacturers face growing and cumulative competitive disadvantages in 
the international marketplace, the time has come for Congress to work 
with the administration on behalf of a stronger trade policy.
  Clearly, the centerpiece of a new and more aggressive trade policy 
has to be new authority which allows our government to pursue trade 
agreements that level the international playing

[[Page 10731]]

field for American workers and American products. Congress must act 
quickly and firmly to give our trade negotiators the authority they 
need to defend our interest and open distant markets to the creation of 
our sweat, ingenuity and freedom.
  Last week, I outlined to the House the major provisions of my bill, 
H.R. 1446, the Standard Trade Negotiating Authority Act. At that time, 
I promised this House I would return and discuss at greater detail the 
major components of this bill.
  Today, I would like to focus on the pre-authorization requirements. 
This section requires the President to consult with Congress and 
receive an affirmative vote to authorize the initiation of trade 
negotiations with any country or countries before proceeding with them. 
WTO negotiations, which are already authorized by existing agreements, 
would be exempt from this pre-authorization requirement.
  Mr. Speaker, Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution specifically 
grants to Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign 
nations. Unfortunately, over the last several decades, Congress has 
almost entirely ceded the policy making initiative over this 
increasingly vital part of our national economy. Under Fast Track, we 
eliminated our oversight and opportunity to influence the outcome of 
potentially far-reaching agreements to one single up-or-down vote.
  I believe this lack of input and transparency has led directly to the 
increasing controversy surrounding trade agreements and the inability 
of the Nation to have an intelligent and conclusive discussion about 
trade policy.
  For example, NAFTA was never contemplated during the Fast Track 
authorization then in existence. In 1988, when we last authorized Fast 
Track authority, NAFTA was not even discussed. But within a couple of 
years, NAFTA was brought back in toto for an up-or-down vote.
  Likewise, the 1994 GATT agreement included changes to section 201 and 
301 of our trade laws, the antisurge and antidumping provisions, 
without any prior discussion in Congress.
  How then would the pre-authorization requirements of H.R. 1446 
address these concerns?
  First, Mr. Speaker, my bill provides ongoing authority for the 
President to negotiate any trade agreement, providing first that he 
receives approval from Congress in the form of a vote to specifically 
authorize that negotiation along with its scope and its objectives.
  This means that each negotiation can be considered under its own 
merits and provides for a systemic review by the Congress while there 
is still some time to affect the outcome.
  There will be no more surprises, not for us, and more importantly not 
for the people we represent.
  Under this legislation, 90 days before entering into trade 
negotiations, the President would formally notify Congress of his 
intention to proceed. The International Trade Commission would also be 
required to complete an assessment of the potential impact of the 
agreement on the U.S. economy.
  Legitimate labor and environmental concerns would find voice in this 
process through the establishment of a Commission on Labor and the 
Environment. The Commission would issue a report to Congress and the 
President laying out specific concerns and negotiating objectives prior 
to the vote by Congress on pre-authorization.
  This careful review process allows the Congress to deal with the 
reality that not all proposed negotiations are created equal.
  It is certainly the case that a bilateral trade agreement with 
Australia would raise very different issues and different concerns than 
one with Egypt or Laos.
  Hemispheric trade proposals may raise labor and environmental 
concerns which have no relevant place in a negotiation involving 
financial services or competition policy.
  For these reasons, our negotiating strategy and goals must be 
flexible if we are to maximize the opportunities before us. The law 
should recognize this reality while still remaining true to our 
constitutional obligations as a Congress.
  Some may attack this proposal because it would require two votes by 
Congress, not just one, one before a negotiation and one to approve the 
final agreement. I say so much the better.
  The government should speak plainly and honestly to our citizens. Our 
trade policy should be shaped in direct consultation with working 
families throughout the United States, speaking through their elected 
representatives.
  Goals and objectives should be spelled out. Details matter. If we 
want to restore the faith of Americans in trade agreements, we must be 
forthright in spelling out our objectives, and we should have nothing 
to hide.
  Pass this legislation and give the administration the authority they 
need.

                          ____________________