[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 15692-15732]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    UNITED STATES-AUSTRALIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I now ask unanimous consent that the FSC bill be 
temporarily set aside and I now move to proceed to H.R. 4759, the 
Australia Free Trade Agreement. I further ask consent that there be 6 
hours equally divided between the chairman and ranking member or their 
designees; provided further that all other provisions of the statute 
remain applicable to the bill.
  Further, I ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding 
back of the time the Senate proceed to a vote on the passage of H.R. 
4759, and immediately following that vote the Senate resume 
consideration of the FSC bill and proceed to a vote in relation to the 
DeWine amendment as provided under the order.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally 
divided for debate prior to the second vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we would have 2 
minutes on each side, if there is opposition to this, which I think 
there will be. Is that right?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. That would be on the DeWine amendment?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator modify his request?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Before the distinguished chairman makes his statement, for 
the 3 hours on our side, I would ask that 90 minutes of that time be 
assigned to Senator Dorgan, 60 minutes to Senator Conrad, 15 minutes to 
Senator Dayton, and 10 minutes to Senator Feingold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now proceed with 6 hours of 
debate equally divided.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for staff and Senators who are not on 
the floor, I call attention to the fact that we are starting the debate 
on the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement. We have 3 hours on 
this side. I have not had many requests for time, and I know that two 
or three Members want to speak. I urge those Members to come over early 
to speak because if we can yield back time we do want to do so.
  I was only going to speak about 7 or 8 minutes. The Senator from 
Oklahoma wanted to speak 5 minutes. Is there any problem if I give the 
Senator from Oklahoma 5 minutes right now and then I speak 7 or 8 
minutes and then the Senator from North Dakota can have the floor?
  Mr. DORGAN. No problem.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4759) to implement the United States-Australia 
     Free Trade Agreement.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Grassley and 
Senator Baucus for the way they have managed this bill. They have 
conducted their work in a very appropriate way. They had hearings on 
this bill. I want to compliment Ambassador Zoellick. Our trade 
negotiator did an outstanding job in putting this together.
  This trade agreement is a win/win. It is a win for Australia and it 
is a win for the United States. I am pleased to see the Senate work as 
it is supposed to work. We had hearings on it. We had a markup in 
committee. We are now having it considered on the floor.
  This is going to open additional markets and reduce tariffs for the 
United States. It is going to be a win for Australia as well. Both 
countries, strong allies, will benefit as a result.
  Prime Minister Howard of Australia has been a good friend and ally of 
the United States. He has been steadfast in helping us in many ways, 
trade being one of them. Again, free trade, equal trade, open access, 
we are winning or gaining more because the tariffs were higher on their 
side in many respects and so this is positive for United States 
consumers and for Australian consumers.
  Again, I want to compliment the administration for proposing this 
agreement, for the work that was done by our trade negotiators, and 
also by Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus for bringing this up so 
quickly on the floor, getting it through the Finance Committee and 
ultimately through the Senate today. I also want to compliment our 
leader, Senator Frist, for making this happen.
  I led a delegation to Australia earlier this year. We felt very 
strongly in our support not only for this agreement but frankly in 
strengthening our relationships with such a great ally and friend as 
Australia. So I am very pleased to support this agreement. I urge our 
colleagues to support it with an overwhelming vote later this 
afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senate majority 
leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


 Unanimous Consent Request--authorizing the Judiciary Committee to meet

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the agreement we have underway provides for 
two votes later this afternoon. The first is final passage of the 
Australia free-trade bill and the second is the DeWine amendment to the 
FSC legislation. I hope we will not need all 6 hours set aside for the 
Australia bill. Some members have already spoken over the course of 
yesterday, and therefore we may be able to expedite consideration of 
this bill over the course of the afternoon by yielding back some time.
  In any event, for the benefit of Senators, I wanted to notify them we 
will be stacking these two votes later today.
  On another matter, I have been notified that the minority objected to 
the Judiciary Committee meeting today at 2. The other 12 committee 
requests were granted, and that one request was objected to. There is a 
lot of important work to be done by the Judiciary Committee. As I look 
at it, the chairman has four judges on the agenda, as well as 
legislation. As I look at the schedule, I note that the Hatch-Feinstein 
constitutional amendment on flag desecration was scheduled as well 
today. I feel it is important to get to both the nominations as well as 
the legislation.
  It was only the other day there were complaints on the floor about 
not taking constitutional amendments

[[Page 15693]]

through committee, and that is on their agenda today. Now we have 
objections to going through the process of having the committee meet to 
consider the nominations and legislation. I hope my colleagues on the 
Democratic side will rethink their objection so we can proceed and the 
Judiciary Committee can proceed with this important business and allow 
these committees to do their work.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be 
authorized to meet to continue its markup on Thursday, July 15, 2004, 
at 2 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, while the distinguished majority leader is 
on the floor, we have already started receiving calls in the cloakroom 
and I am sure the Republican cloakroom has received similar calls. If 
we are able to finish the work on the trade bill and the FSC conference 
legislation that is now before the body, will we have votes tomorrow?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, before I commit to no votes tomorrow, these 
two bills we are voting on today are very important and I would think 
we would not have votes tomorrow, but before people take that and sort 
of run with it, let me have some conversations over the next 30 minutes 
or so.
  Mr. REID. Also, I ask the leader, through the Chair, would he also 
give some indication before the day is out as to what he plans on 
Monday?
  Mr. FRIST. We will. There are a lot of Members whose schedules very 
much depend on when we vote either tomorrow or later tonight--hopefully 
not later tonight, but earlier tonight as well as on Monday night or 
Tuesday morning. We will work all of that out within the next hour or 
so, so we can notify Members.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. FRIST. Be happy to.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the majority leader is speaking of 
schedules, in this case the schedule of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 
I inquire of the majority leader about the schedule with respect to 
legislation he and I have spoken about at great length. The last 
occasion was about midnight on the floor of the Senate, after which I 
allowed the nomination of Dr. McClellan to proceed. As a result of 
that, the issue of allowing prescription drug reimportation in this 
country and legislation that is bipartisan in scope with over 30 
Senators now cosponsoring it, I had intended and hoped we would have an 
opportunity to vote on that on the Senate floor. I have not had the 
opportunity to speak with the majority leader at length in recent days, 
but my hope would be we could go back and revisit what is put in the 
Congressional Record. And my hope is what was put in the Congressional 
Record will then allow us to have an opportunity on the floor of the 
Senate to advance the legislation that we previously discussed dealing 
with the reimportation of prescription drugs and allowing us to put 
downward pressure on prescription drug prices in this country.
  I ask the majority leader whether he has had an opportunity to go 
through that and whether he could give me some advice as to when he 
would allow that to be debated on the floor of the Senate?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be happy to be in discussion with my 
colleague. Since our discussion, now many weeks ago, we have made real 
progress in terms of understanding the potential impact of allowing the 
reimportation of drugs. I think there has been a lot of discussion on 
both sides of the aisle. We had an extended meeting yesterday talking 
about the safety issue surrounding it.
  Since our discussion, there have been hearings in the appropriate 
Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee. There has been a bill 
put together by the principals in the committee, the responsible 
committee. There have been scheduled markups, and I believe there is a 
markup scheduled for next week on that particular bill. So progress is 
being made.
  It is a very important issue. We are talking about not just 
reimportation and the cost of drugs, but we are talking about the 
safety of drugs being used. I think we have made a huge amount of 
progress over the last several weeks, so in terms of scheduling and 
looking at what time that might be considered on the floor of the 
Senate, I will be happy to be in discussion with my colleague.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am happy to bring to my colleagues the 
United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. This 
is a bill that Congress must pass to actually implement what has been 
negotiated as the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement. This is 
under the process that we call trade promotion authority. This is a 
process by which Congress, which has the constitutional power to 
regulate interstate and foreign commerce, has delegated negotiating 
authority to the President to negotiate certain trade agreements. But 
because we have that constitutional authority, we cannot give to the 
President of the United States the authority to change U.S. law as it 
might be negotiated.
  So we are now dealing with legislation that changes U.S. law and 
makes the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement not a treaty 
approved just by the Senate of the United States, as we know treaties 
are, by two-thirds vote, but this is basic law. It has passed the House 
of Representatives by a majority vote, hopefully it will pass the 
Senate by a majority vote, and it is to be signed by the President.
  We are dealing with the constitutional authority of the Congress to 
regulate foreign and interstate commerce, but understanding that it is 
not reasonable to expect 535 Members of Congress to deal with foreign 
countries, we have asked the President to do that for us but under 
guidelines that we have set down and with Congress having the final 
authority. We are in the process of exercising that final authority.
  As is true of almost any agreement, this one might not be perfect. 
However, I believe it will provide significant benefits to the United 
States, our economy, and particularly to the economy and the people of 
my home State of Iowa.
  During committee consideration of the agreement, we heard from a 
number of different sectors of the economy which stand to benefit from 
the agreement. At the top of the list is the U.S. manufacturing sector 
and all the jobs that exist in that sector that will be stabilized and 
enhanced as a result of American manufacturing selling a lot more to 
Australia because certain duties that now are on those products will be 
gone.
  Under the agreement, more than 99 percent of U.S. manufacturing 
exports to Australia will become duty free immediately after this 
agreement is signed by the President. This is the most significant 
reduction of manufacturing tariffs ever achieved in any U.S. free-trade 
agreement.
  This is very good news for manufacturers such as the Al-jon company 
of Ottumwa, IA, employing 100 people. Today, about 10 to 15 percent of 
Al-jon's production is exported. They are confident that with a level 
playing field they can do even better. This bill helps level that 
field.
  During testimony before my committee, John Kneen, chairman of the 
board of Al-jon, testified that while they have had some success 
selling in Australia, their exports are currently limited by two 
factors: First, Australia currently imposes a 5-percent tariff on their 
exports. And, second, the cost of shipping heavy equipment to Australia 
is very high. While we cannot do much about the cost of shipping, we 
surely can eliminate the 5-percent barrier with the enactment of this 
trade agreement.
  It is not just the company of Al-jon that will benefit. Mr. Kneen 
testified that over 19,000 U.S. companies that currently export to 
Australia are likely to benefit from what he termed the ``instant 
competitive advantage'' provided by the elimination of these tariff 
barriers on U.S. manufacturing exports.

[[Page 15694]]

  These companies include other Iowa manufacturers such as John Deere, 
which has four manufacturing plants in my State. John Deere anticipates 
increased exports to Australia on account of this free-trade agreement.
  The U.S. agricultural sector stands to benefit from the agreement as 
well, as duties on all U.S. farm exports will be eliminated, reducing 
tariffs on U.S. agricultural exports by over $700 million. Processed 
food, soybeans, oilseed products, fresh and processed fruits and 
vegetables, all will benefit from these duty reductions. For U.S. 
farmers and our ranchers who compete with Australian agriculture, 
special safeguards and tariff rate quotas are included as part of the 
agreement to make sure that trade is not only free but fair.
  The free-trade agreement negotiating process also opened the door to 
eliminate scientifically unfounded barriers to the importation of U.S. 
pork and U.S. pork for processing. These are all major Iowa products 
because we are No. 1 of the 50 States in the production of pork. While 
Australia made its scientific determination regarding pork outside of 
the free-trade agreement negotiations, the intensive consultation 
process that naturally flows from engaging in bilateral trade 
negotiations helped in the resolution of that very important matter. 
Dermot Hayes, an economist at Iowa State University, estimates that the 
elimination of these unfounded barriers could increase U.S. exports of 
pork to Australia by over $50 million annually.
  The United States-Australia Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures, and the Standing Technical Working Group on Animal and Plant 
Health Measures, which are established under the FTA, will help to 
ensure that all Australian standards on United States agricultural 
imports are based on sound science and are not used as a basis for 
protectionism.
  Iowa's service providers will also benefit from new market-access 
openings in Australia for our service exports. These commitments, along 
with new, transparent trading rules, should provide a lot of important 
new market opportunities for Iowa's service exports.
  And, for the first time, this agreement opens much of Australia's 
lucrative government procurement market to United States exporters. The 
government procurement provisions are especially important, as 
Australia is one of only a few developed countries that are not members 
of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement.
  In sum, the United States will benefit from the United States-
Australia Free Trade Agreement. I urge my colleagues to vote for S. 
2610, the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation 
Act.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today the Senate begins 
consideration of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement. I support 
this agreement for one simple reason: Trade means jobs.
  The U.S. economy is the most flexible, vibrant, and dynamic in the 
world. We owe that to the ingenuity of the American people and their 
relentless thirst to create and to innovate.
  We also owe it to the policies we have put in place to support the 
innovation that keeps our economy growing and creating jobs. That 
includes embracing open trade.
  Twelve million Americans--1 out of every 10 workers--depend on 
exports for their jobs. And these jobs pay thousands of dollars more 
than jobs unrelated to trade.
  Now, some think of trade as helping only big multinational companies. 
In reality, trade helps companies of all sizes. Firms with fewer than 
20 workers make up two-thirds of American exporters.
  Trade also creates benefits for communities across the country. In 
Montana, nearly 6,000 jobs depend on manufacturing exports. And more 
than 730 Montana companies, mostly small and medium-sized businesses, 
export products overseas.
  Despite the well-known benefits of trade and the vibrancy of the U.S. 
economy, the last few years have been difficult ones.
  Since January 2001, the American private sector has lost nearly 2 
million jobs--mainly in manufacturing. And service-sector jobs--once 
virtually immune to international competition--have begun to move 
offshore in increasing numbers.
  When people talk about jobs moving overseas, they frequently talk 
about trade. Too often, the proposed solution is to retreat into 
isolationism and raise barriers to trade. In my view, that's exactly 
the wrong approach. We should engage in more trade, not less.
  But we must be smart about trade. We must enforce our trade laws and 
our trade agreements. We must ensure that markets remain open to U.S. 
companies, and that U.S. companies can compete on a level playing 
field.
  We should reject the notion that we must lower standards in this 
country to compete. Instead, we must look to raise standards in the 
countries we trade with. The Trade Act of 2002 made tremendous progress 
in this regard, but we must continue to ``race to the top.''
  The free trade agreement with Australia is the kind of agreement we 
should be negotiating. It offers both broad commercial benefits and 
high standards.
  Australia is one of the few countries with whom the U.S. enjoys a 
trade surplus, with the bulk of this surplus in manufactured goods.
  With this agreement, U.S. manufacturers predict that U.S. exports 
will grow by an additional 20 percent--$2 billion per year. Montana 
already exports $3.4 million per year in industrial goods to Australia. 
And these exports will grow with this agreement.
  This is great news to manufacturing workers who have been hard hit by 
massive job losses. It is especially important in a State like Montana, 
where we have lost 3,300 manufacturing jobs in the past 4 years. These 
losses represented 15 percent of the Montana manufacturing workforce.
  But it's not just about manufacturing. This agreement will also 
benefit U.S. service providers. Australia will expand access for cross-
border services, and to enhance regulatory transparency. That will mean 
greater opportunities in financial services as well as those services 
provided through new and innovative technology.
  Beyond these benefits, the agreement also increases protections for 
intellectual property. And it requires Australia to offer greater 
opportunities to U.S. bidders in government procurement.
  All of these improvements will translate into a more fair and open 
market for U.S. producers. That will mean more jobs and higher wages 
for U.S. workers.
  At the same time, this agreement opens the door to a greater 
relationship with one of the most vibrant and promising economies in 
the world. Australia stands as a gateway to the fast growing markets of 
Southeast Asia. This agreement will help U.S. companies further develop 
their export potential.
  Now, some have expressed concerns regarding agriculture. Australia 
exports many of the same commodities that the U.S. produces--most 
notably, beef, dairy, and sugar. Yet Australia offers a much smaller 
consumer market in return.
  Those of us from States that produce these commodities were 
concerned. However, given the close relationship between the U.S. and 
Australia, and given the substantial benefits to the manufacturing and 
service sectors, it was clear to me that Congress would approve an 
Australia agreement.
  The only solution to this challenge for U.S. agriculture was good, 
old-fashioned tough negotiating. I urged Ambassador Zoellick to work 
hard to preserve the interests of rural America, by treating U.S. 
commodities sensitively.
  I pushed him to ensure a long transition period, and to provide 
strong safeguards where necessary. I am pleased to report that U.S. 
negotiators responded to these concerns and met me more than half way.
  For beef, there is an 18-year transition period and two automatic 
safeguards. As we drafted the implementing legislation for this 
agreement, I worked hard to ensure that there were significant 
protections for Montana's ranchers.

[[Page 15695]]

  For dairy, the agreement ensures a slow pace for increased market 
access, while maintaining over-quota tariffs--a chief priority for U.S. 
producers.
  Finally, U.S. negotiators preserved current sugar policy, in order to 
enhance our prospects to achieve global reform in the WTO.
  These protections help shape an agreement that is balanced and sound. 
It enhances opportunities for U.S. companies and workers, while also 
being sensitive to the interests of our farmers and ranchers.
  Let me turn to one final issue that has been receiving attention 
lately. In the last couple of days, some Members have questioned 
whether this agreement affects U.S. government regulation of 
prescription drugs.
  These concerns involve the potential impact of trade agreements on 
U.S. healthcare programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and the VA and 
DOD programs, and the implications of the agreement on the adoption of 
drug reimportation legislation in the future.
  USTR has assured Congress that the provisions in the agreement will 
not require any changes to the administration of U.S. health programs. 
And that no changes to current U.S. law or administrative practice are 
necessary to implement the agreement.
  Furthermore, because Australia itself does not permit most 
pharmaceuticals to be exported, we are assured that this agreement will 
not impede Congress from considering and enacting reimportation 
legislation.
  My own view is that the concerns raised by these provisions are more 
hypothetical in nature than concrete. Nonetheless, this is an issue 
that Congress--and the Finance Committee--should explore more 
thoroughly as we move forward on trade negotiations in the future.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this agreement. This is an agreement 
that will help our long-term competitiveness. This is an agreement that 
will create jobs. This is an agreement that is good for Montana and 
good for America. I hope it will receive strong support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we meet here in the Senate again to talk 
about the issue of international trade, a very important issue for our 
own country.
  I would like to follow up on my colleague's comments about the 
Constitution. The Constitution does, indeed, talk about trade. It talks 
about who is responsible for international trade in this country. It is 
article I, section 8 of the Constitution. It says:

       The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with 
     foreign nations.

  Yet Congress has largely given away that opportunity and the 
responsibility with respect to trade.
  What the Congress has done, strangely enough, is to put itself in a 
straitjacket by voting and passing legislation called ``fast track''--
which doesn't sound like English, perhaps, to most people--fast-track 
trade authority.
  Fast track means that Members of Congress will promise that when a 
trade agreement is negotiated somewhere else in the world in secret, 
behind closed doors, by our trade ambassador, when it is finally 
brought back to the Senate for a vote up or down, the Congress will 
prevent itself from ever being able to offer amendments to change it if 
it thinks something in it is wrong. That is fast track. The Congress 
has decided to limit its own ability to fix problems. I didn't vote for 
fast track, but the majority of my colleagues did.
  So we have a situation where we have a rather innocuous trade 
agreement today between the United States and Australia. There is not 
much in this agreement that is of great moment. There are a couple of 
bad things in it that should be taken out. We should have a vote on the 
provision dealing with pharmaceutical drugs. We ought to have an 
opportunity to amend this trade agreement in a way that deals with 
trading authorities, such as the Australian Wheat Board and the 
authority in Australia that deals with the sale of cattle. These are 
state trading enterprises that would be illegal in this country. We are 
actually having to say, let's trade with someone else who has a 
monopoly in marketing operations in agriculture, and we will consider 
that fair. It is not fair at all. I will talk about that at some 
length.
  In any event, the Congress, through its lack of wisdom, I must say, 
has decided to use what is called fast-track trade authority, which 
means this agreement is here now and no one may offer any amendments 
because Congress decided to put itself in a straitjacket. So we have a 
circumstance with no amendments.
  Let me at least describe where we are with international trade. Most 
people do not want to talk about it.
  This is a massive failure. This is a colossal failure of this country 
on international trade.
  This chart shows the countries with which we have trade surpluses. 
They are not in red, they are in green. All these countries in red are 
countries with which we have trade deficits--some very large. You look 
at a map of the world and you will see that we have on only a very few 
occasions trade surpluses. One of them happens to be with Australia. 
That will soon be gone after we pass this trade agreement. That is the 
case with every trade agreement we have done. But Australia, Egypt, 
Belgium--there are just a few countries with whom we have a surplus. 
With the rest of the world, of course, we have a large, abiding, 
substantial trade deficit.
  Last month, I put this on a chart and showed it on the floor of the 
Senate. The Washington Post says, ``U.S. Trade Deficit Set Another 
Record In April.'' That trade deficit was $48 billion in 1 month, 
almost $50 billion in 1 single month. Month after month after month we 
see this trade deficit.
  Let me go through a bit and perhaps show some charts that might give 
us the opportunity to ask the question, Are we really doing well here?
  This is all about jobs, as you know. It is about where the jobs are 
located. It is about outsourcing. It is about moving jobs from here to 
another country.
  Let us look at what is happening to our trade balance. This is the 
merchandise trade deficit. You will see this is dangerous, in my 
judgment, and very alarming. You won't hear anybody come to talk much 
about it. This is sort of the unseen, the hidden part of our policy 
that will cause, in my judgment, substantial problems in the future. 
You can make a case that the budget deficit, the big budget deficit--
incidentally, it is the biggest in history--will be repaid. It is a 
deficit the American people will repay to themselves. You can make that 
point. But you cannot make that point with the trade deficit. This 
large trade deficit will inevitably be repaid by a lower standard of 
living in this country. It is getting worse and worse year after year 
after year. And every single year, when another trade agreement is 
brought to the Senate floor, we are told what a wonderful agreement it 
is and how much we are going to sell and what good times we are going 
to have as a result of this agreement. Yet in every single case our 
trade deficit grows, jobs leave this country, and you will see that we 
are mortgaging this country's future.
  Let me talk about some specifics, if I might. This is our trading 
partner to the north, Canada, a country with which we have a wonderful 
relationship. They, of course, have a terrific relationship with us 
with respect to this trade balance.
  When we passed something called the North American Free Trade 
Agreement, we had a relatively modest trade deficit with Canada--
somewhere in here. But now it has grown to be a very substantial trade 
deficit with Canada. I will talk a little about why in a few moments.
  China is the granddaddy of trade deficits. You will see what is 
happening in China. We are seeing massive and record trade deficits, of 
$130 billion a year. It is getting worse, worse, worse, and it is going 
to hurt this country.
  What about the European Union? We used to actually have a bit of a 
trade surplus with the European Union. That has gotten worse and worse. 
It is now nearly as large as the merchandise trade deficit we have with 
China.

[[Page 15696]]

  Japan is another interesting one. Japan, while not quite as large as 
Europe and China, demonstrates the fundamental and relentless 
incompetence of policymakers in trade. Over and over again, year after 
year, every single year, we have this deficit with Japan, somewhere 
between $50 billion, $60 billion, $70 billion a year, every single 
year.
  Now Mexico. We had this big old NAFTA, North American Free Trade 
Agreement we negotiated with Mexico and Canada. When we negotiated it, 
we had a trade surplus with Mexico and a modest deficit with Canada. We 
turned that into a big deficit with Mexico and a larger deficit with 
Canada. So much for whether this North American Free Trade Agreement 
worked.
  We could not offer any amendments to any of these agreements because 
of this foolishness called fast track, which, incidentally, inhibits us 
today in the Senate on this trade agreement with Australia.
  I will go through some of the examples. I could start by talking 
about Japan. I mentioned the circumstance with Japan. We have a large 
trade deficit with Japan, and it just keeps on going every single year, 
$45, $60, $70 billion, forever. Europe will not allow that, by the way, 
but we do. I am talking about Europe and its relationship with Japan. 
We are a country that, in most cases, converts what should be hard 
economic policy--that is, trade policy--into softheaded foreign policy 
and we do not want to take action anywhere to stand up for America's 
interests.
  I will talk about Japan in the context of my State. We produce a lot 
of beef. We have a lot of ranchers who work hard. They get up in the 
morning and work on that ranch. They are hoping to make a decent 
living. They want to sell some beef to Japan. But guess what. Nearly 15 
years after a beef agreement with Japan between our country and Japan, 
which was trumpeted on the pages of all the newspapers--the United 
States and Japanese trade negotiators reach agreement on beef--15 years 
later, there is a 50-percent tariff on every single pound of American 
beef that goes into Japan. That would be considered a failure under any 
circumstance here, but in our relationship with Japan, it is just 
fine--a 50-percent tariff on every pound of beef. Should we be able to 
send more T-bones to Tokyo? I think so, sure. The tariff actually went 
down to 38 percent, and because we got a little more beef in to Japan, 
it snapped back to 50 percent. It is symbolic of the trade problems we 
have.
  Does anyone want to do anything? Do we hear anyone rushing off to try 
to solve that problem? No. No one talks about that problem.
  Let me use the Chinese tariffs on cars for a moment. Two years ago we 
did a bilateral agreement with China--actually, almost 3 years ago, 
now--a bilateral trade agreement with China. Our country decided, 
through our negotiators with China--a country with which we have a 
large deficit and it is growing dangerously high--we decided in our 
bilateral trade in automobiles we would agree to the following: China, 
you can put a 25-percent tariff on any cars that we try to sell in 
China after a long phase-in and we will apply a 2.5-percent tariff to 
any cars that you might want to sell in our marketplace.
  In other words, our negotiators signed up to a deal that said, we 
know you have a really big surplus with us, or we have a big deficit 
with you, but with respect to automobile trade, you go ahead and impose 
a tariff that is 10 times higher than the one we will impose on 
automobiles going back and forth between China and the United States.
  Of course, right now, China is gearing up an auto industry for 
exports and our negotiators said it is fine for them to have a tariff 
that is 10 times higher than we would have. That is fundamentally 
incompetent. We do not know who negotiated that, of course. This is not 
a matter of Democrats or Republicans. It is just incompetence, gross 
incompetence.
  I will talk a little about Korea and automobiles, and I have used 
this example many times. I don't have the latest year's data, but trust 
me, it is about the same. Over 600,000 Korean vehicles are coming into 
this country. Ships are on the high seas, packed with Korean cars, 
coming in so the American consumers can purchase them. Good for our 
consumers. But when 618,000 Korean cars come into our country for our 
consumers to purchase, guess how many American cars are in the Korean 
marketplace for Koreans to purchase? There are 2,800 U.S. cars able to 
be sold in Korea and over 600,000 Korean cars in the United States.
  With respect to Korea, I might point out that we actually were making 
some progress recently. It was with a vehicle called the Dodge Dakota. 
When it looked as if that was beginning to pick up, we were actually 
going to be able to sell some in Korea, they did not like that and took 
action quickly to begin to shut that down.
  The question is, Why will this country, when all of this translates 
to jobs here or there, why will this country decide it is all right in 
our relationship with Korea to have them ship 600,000 cars this way and 
then keep American cars out of Korea? It does not make any sense to me. 
What that means is fewer jobs in the United States and more in Korea. 
That means people are laid off here and people are hired there.
  I know the agreement we are debating involves Australia, and I will 
talk about Australia in a couple of minutes, but it is important to put 
this discussion in a frame of reference. We will hear today by those 
who support this trade agreement that this is a wonderful agreement, 
this is nirvana, and if we just step back and we can see into the 
future, this will be new jobs, new economic growth, new opportunity. 
Nonsense. Total nonsense.
  In each and every circumstance, our trade negotiations have resulted 
in trade agreements that have undermined our jobs and undermined our 
economic growth.
  Want to talk about specifics? I will put the charts back up. Europe, 
Japan, China, Korea, Canada, Mexico--show me one of these circumstances 
where the trade agreement has buttressed the producers in this country, 
the employers in this country, the workers in this country toward new 
opportunities. In the aggregate, with each of those circumstances, we 
have lost ground rather than gained ground.
  I know when we talk about this, people, especially the more 
institutional thinkers on this subject, say, well, your discussion 
demonstrates you do not get it, you do not see over the horizon, you do 
not understand what is happening internationally. This is a global 
economy. Why not shape up and listen and you will finally begin to 
understand this. You are nothing but a xenophobic isolationist stooge. 
Join the rest of the protectionists and just sit down.
  I am not a protectionist, unless that means you want to protect the 
economic interests of this country, and if so I plead guilty and demand 
to be called that. I want to protect the economic interests of this 
country. I believe it is in this country's best interest to expand 
opportunities to trade. I believe that strongly.
  For the first 25 years after the Second World War, our trade policy 
was almost exclusively foreign policy because we were trying to help 
others get back on their feet. But in the second 25 years after the 
Second World War, trade policy continued to be foreign policy when, in 
fact, it should have been harder nosed economic policy.
  I began to raise questions about trade as a result of a trade 
agreement with Canada some long time ago. I suppose it was around 14 
years ago. I was serving in the House of Representatives and I was on 
the Ways and Means committee. They were going to vote on the United 
States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement. It, too, was done with fast track, 
where no one was able to offer an amendment. A little provision was 
stuck in that agreement that allowed the Canadian Wheat Board, a 
sanctioned monopoly in Canada and which sells Canadian wheat through 
the monopoly--and that would be illegal in this country--to continue to 
move massive quantities of Canadian grain, underselling our farmers 
with unfair

[[Page 15697]]

prices and secret prices into our country, into our marketplace. I 
raised those issues but to no avail.
  So we came to the final vote on the United States-Canada Free-Trade 
Agreement and the vote in the Ways and Means Committee of the House of 
Representatives was 34 to 1. I was the one who opposed it.
  I was told by all my colleagues: We want this to be a unanimous vote. 
It is very important for our committee. You must join us to get a 
unanimous vote on this trade agreement. I said: But the agreement is 
bad. The agreement is wrong. The agreement is going to hurt farmers and 
ranchers in an awful way in this country. So I voted no.
  About 3 years later, I drove to the Canadian border one day, the 
border between North Dakota and Canada. I rode with Earl Jensen, who 
was driving a 12-year-old orange truck. It was a little old 2-ton 
orange truck. We rumbled up to border with some durum wheat on the back 
of his truck, all the way to the Canadian border.
  On this windy day, we saw 18-wheel trucks coming from Canada to the 
United States, all loaded with Canadian grain, all of them headed to 
our marketplace, all of them with secret pricing, all marketed by the 
Canadian Wheat Board--a monopoly--which would be illegal in this 
country. All the way to the border we saw those trucks, dozens and 
dozens of trucks. The Canadians were saturating our marketplace, 
injuring our farmers in dramatic ways.
  Well, we got to the border in this little old orange 12-year-old 
truck. We had about, I guess, 100 bushels of durum wheat in the back. 
When we got to the border station, the Canadian folks said: What do you 
have in the back of this truck? We said: We have durum wheat from North 
Dakota.
  Remember, all the way to the border, we had 18-wheel trucks full of 
durum wheat from Canada going into our marketplace at secret prices. We 
found later, incidentally, they were at prices that were dumped prices 
that were designed to undermine our farmers. But we were told at the 
border station entering Canada we could not get just a small amount of 
wheat from the United States into Canada. Why? Because you just cannot. 
It is the way this works. It is a trade agreement. One side gets to 
dump all their products into our marketplace, and a little orange truck 
gets stopped going into theirs.
  A woman from Bowman, ND, married a Canadian. She told me she came 
home to Bowman one day, and because she liked to make whole wheat 
bread, her dad from the farm loaded up some grain in a couple grocery 
sacks. She drove back to Canada after Thanksgiving. She got to the 
border. Again, all these 18-wheel trucks were hauling Canadian durum 
south. She got to the border, and they forced her to throw out these 
two bags of wheat from a North Dakota farm that she was going to take 
back into Canada to make whole wheat bread. It was because you could 
not take that into Canada.
  There is not one person in this Congress, in my judgment, not one in 
the U.S. House, not one in U.S. Senate, who will stand up and say: Yes, 
that is fair. That is right. We support it. We stand by it. That is 
what we intended. Not one. Yet none will lift a finger to change it. 
And that is just one small example that got me involved in this 
question of fair trade. Why on Earth will this Congress not stand up 
for this country's economic interest?
  When it comes to international trade issues with respect to the 
production of manufactured goods--I have mentioned before and let me do 
it again because I am not at all embarrassed by repetition, so let me 
do it again and again and again--the Huffy bicycles that are made in 
this country, which I have spoken about repeatedly, are a wonderful 
bicycle, but they are no longer American bicycles. Huffy bicycles, most 
people know, are bought at K-Mart and Wal-Mart and Sears. They are 20 
percent of America's marketplace for bicycles. They were made in Ohio 
by workers who made $11 an hour. They were proud of their jobs. In 
fact, the Huffy bicycles had a decal on the front just below the 
handlebar with the American flag. But those workers in Ohio do not make 
$11 an hour. They were fired. Huffy bicycles are made in China for 33 
cents an hour by people who work 7 days a week, in some cases 12 to 14 
hours a day. And the people in Ohio, who were proud to make these 
bicycles, had to go home one day to say to their spouse: Honey, I've 
lost my job. It wasn't because I didn't do a good job. It wasn't 
because I didn't like my job. It was because I can't compete with 33-
cents-an-hour labor.
  I don't know, I guess this truly is a globalized economy. 
Globalization has galloped along, and we are not going to change it. 
Have the rules for globalization moved along quite so quickly? I don't 
think so. What are the rules for globalization?
  The next picture is of a little red wagon most of us have ridden in. 
The little red wagon is called the Radio Flyer. This little red wagon 
was an American fixture for 100 years. For 100 years, they made the 
little red wagon in our country. Not anymore. It is gone. You buy labor 
for pennies an hour somewhere and have them make the little red wagon, 
and then make sure you have them make it in a way that allows them to 
sell it back into the American marketplace.
  Yes, you can still buy the little red wagon. You can still buy Huffy 
bicycles in the American marketplace. But they are not made here. They 
show up as a big red bar on that trade chart I showed you, and that big 
red bar means jobs, and it means jobs that left here and went there. It 
means a worker in Ohio who made the Huffy bicycle now does not have a 
job. Because they are bad workers? No. Because they will not work for 
33 cents an hour. They cannot do that.
  So there are all kinds of elements to this issue of international 
trade, something that, in my judgment, is going to impose a substantial 
burden on this country with the kind of Federal deficits and kind of 
trade deficits we are now waging. You cannot experience these deficits 
year after year after year and not be forced, at some point, to turn to 
them, face them, and deal with them.
  We ought not, in my judgment, deal with them by saying that we want 
to retreat from trade. Our country, in my judgment, should lead the 
world in trade--but lead the world in saying to others: There is an 
admission price to the American marketplace. There is an admission 
price here. You cannot, as a country, decide you are going to hire 
kids, pay them pennies, put them in unsafe plants, fire them if they 
try to form a labor union, and then produce your product and ship it to 
Pittsburgh or Fargo or Los Angeles or Denver. You cannot do that 
because we won't let you do that.
  I will give you an example in China. This is a story from the 
Washington Post that I was interested in. It is a tragic story, but it 
is a story that mirrors a story of a couple of young women who came to 
a hearing I held a few months ago from Honduras who worked in a 
factory. You can find them all over the country--the young kids who 
work in a carpet plant at age 11. They tell us they have their 
fingertips burnt deliberately so that when these young kids are making 
these carpets with needles and they stick their fingers, it won't hurt 
because the burning of the fingertips creates scarring, so it does not 
hurt the kids when they stick themselves. You can find this all over 
the world.
  Let me describe this story. This happened to be in China. In this 
article, it says:

       On the night she died, Li Chunmei must have been exhausted.
       Co-workers said she had been on her feet for nearly 16 
     hours, running back and forth inside the Bainan Toy Factory, 
     carrying toy parts from machine to machine.
       It was the busy season before Christmas. Orders peaked from 
     Japan and the U.S. for stuffed animals.
       Long hours were mandatory, and at least two months had 
     passed since Li and the other workers had enjoyed even a 
     Sunday off.
       Lying in her bed that night, staring at the bunk, the 19-
     year-old claimed she felt worn out.
       The factory food was so bad, she said she felt as if she 
     had not eaten at all.
       ``I want to quit,'' one of her roommates . . . remembered 
     her saying. ``I want to go home.''
       Finally the lights went out. [She] started coughing up 
     blood. They found her in the

[[Page 15698]]

     bathroom a few hours later, curled up on the floor, moaning 
     softly in the dark, bleeding from her nose and mouth. Someone 
     called an ambulance, but she died before it arrived.
       The cause of Li's death remains unknown. But what happened 
     to her last November . . . in southeastern Guangdong province 
     is described by family, friends and co-workers as an example 
     of what China's more daring newspapers call guolaosi.
       The phrase means ``over-work death,'' and applies to young 
     workers who suddenly collapse and die after working 
     exceedingly long hour days, day after day.

  Stories of these deaths highlight labor conditions that are the norm 
for a new generation of workers in China. Tens of millions of migrants 
have flocked from the nation's impoverished countryside to its 
prospering coast.
  Perhaps more evidence is in a story about child labor in El 
Salvador--a country that our trade ambassador has just signed a new 
trade deal with:
  Jesus Franco has scars crisscrossing his legs from his ankles to his 
thighs, and many more on his small hands. For more than half of his 
young life--he is age 14--he has spent long days cutting sugar cane, 
and he has the machete scars to prove it. And so do his four brothers 
age 9 to 19.
  The point of this is simple: The rules of trade, in my judgment, have 
to be rules that recognize what we have accomplished in this country. 
We had people die on the streets in this country, demonstrating for the 
right to organize as workers. We had people demonstrate and die in the 
streets over that principle. It was a hard-fought battle to demand that 
workplaces be safe for workers in this country but which got there. It 
was not easy to get kids out of coal mines and kids out of 
manufacturing plants with child labor laws, but we did it.
  This country battled long and hard on the question of what is fair 
compensation, and we have a minimum wage. We fought all of those issues 
and established standards. Do we now believe the conditions of 
international trade shall be that anyone who produces anything anywhere 
should have admission to the American marketplace to sell that product 
in our marketplace? I don't think so. We ought to lead on the basis of 
what fair trade relationships really are.
  There are so many more issues dealing with international trade, many 
of them that affect our farmers, affect ranchers, affect workers. They 
affect businesses, small businesses trying to make a living.
  The Australia trade agreement is brought to us as an innocent, rather 
innocuous agreement. It is not the CAFTA agreement, the Central 
American Free Trade Agreement, which is completed but will not be 
brought to this Congress before the election. That, of course, is for 
political reasons. The Australia agreement, despite the fact that I 
will vote no--and perhaps a few of my colleagues will vote no--will 
pass today. It is not as controversial as the Central American Free 
Trade Agreement, which is going to have difficulty in the Senate. But 
CAFTA won't come before the Senate in the coming months, because the 
President and the trade ambassador decided they don't want to bring it 
here before the election. They don't want to have this debate.
  I want to have this debate. I don't think that is a Republican or 
Democratic problem. I think both political parties have shortchanged 
the country over two decades on trade policy. But we ought to have the 
debate now because it is about jobs, growth, and opportunity in the 
future.
  Let me talk for a moment about Australia. As I indicated earlier, the 
Australia trade agreement is with a country that is similar to ours in 
many respects, a much smaller economy but similar. I don't allege this 
is the kind of problem we had when we were trying to connect a trade 
agreement with the country of Mexico, where you were trying to connect 
two countries with dissimilar wages and dissimilar standards. That is 
not the case with Australia. Australia is a wonderful country with 
great people. I would love to visit Australia. I have not yet visited 
Australia and would love to do that at some point.
  My complaint is that we reach a trade agreement that consigns farmers 
and ranchers to great jeopardy. Let me tell you why. The Australians, 
like the Canadians, sell their grain, their wheat, through an 
Australian wheat board. In fact, it is the second largest exporter in 
the world, with 16 percent of the global share. Every grain of that 
that is sold internationally is sold through the Australian wheat board 
which is a sanctioned state monopoly, a state trading enterprise that 
would be illegal in our country.
  We have been told time and again by the trade ambassador that we are 
going to deal with that. In future trade agreements we will not allow 
state trading enterprises to exist in circumstances where they can 
undercut our prices and dump their products into our country.
  I described the circumstance in Canada with the massive quantity of 
grain coming down to our country and my not being able to get into 
Canada with a little orange truck with a few bushels. We have for years 
attempted to get information from the Canadian wheat board about the 
conditions under which they are selling into our marketplace at secret 
prices, and they have said: Go take a hike. We don't intend to tell you 
a thing. The prices are secret. We don't intend to disclose them. Get 
out of here. They told that to the GAO, which went up there at my 
request: We don't intend to tell you a thing.
  What evidence we do have suggests that they, as most monopolists will 
do, abused their pricing power and decided at secret prices to undercut 
our marketplace, and they have dramatically injured our farmers. That 
is not only me speaking. That is from studies that have been done by 
the Center for Agriculture and Trade Research. They have calculated the 
dramatic amount of money lost by family farmers as a result of unfair 
trade.
  Now we have an Australia trade agreement. The Australian wheat board 
continues to exist in this trade agreement. There is nothing in this 
agreement that says, as we hitch together and connect our two countries 
in a trade relationship, you must divest yourself or create a 
circumstance where you are not using a state trading authority 
unfairly. Nothing here prevents them from doing exactly what the 
Canadians do.
  The Australians are also positioned to do great harm to our country 
on beef trade. There are almost no export benefits for our cattle and 
beef producers with this free-trade agreement. Given Australia's 
relatively small population, its very large cattle herd, and its 
position as the world's largest beef exporter, the potential of 
Australia becoming any kind of an importer of our beef is almost nil. 
Instead, the only significant benefit I can see and many can see as a 
result of this with respect to cross-beef trade will be the U.S. beef 
packing industry which will profit from increased imports brought in 
under this agreement.
  The beef industry is highly concentrated in a way that is pretty 
dangerous. I mean dangerous to consumers because the more concentration 
you have, the more pricing power they have and the more they price 
profits away from ranchers and towards themselves. They price it in a 
way that is disadvantageous to consumers.
  There are serious problems that could exist with respect to 
agriculture, and there is nothing anybody can do about that. I would 
love to offer an amendment that deals with these two issues, but you 
can't because of fast track.
  Finally, there is a provision in this agreement that is particularly 
pernicious. This is a trade agreement with Australia that includes a 
provision on prescription drugs. This is from the New York Times:

       Congress is poised to approve an international trade 
     agreement that could have the effect of thwarting a goal 
     pursued by many lawmakers of both parties: The import of 
     expensive prescription drugs to help millions of Americans 
     without health insurance.
       The agreement, negotiated with Australia by the Bush 
     administration, would allow pharmaceutical companies to 
     prevent imports of drugs to the United States.

  This is a trade agreement, and they stick in a provision about 
prescription drugs. They did the same in Singapore.

[[Page 15699]]

My guess is, they will do it every chance they get. What is this? It is 
anticonsumer, pro-pharmaceutical industry. It is an attempt to thwart 
those in this country who want to find a way to put downward pressure 
on prescription drug prices. How might one do that? By allowing the 
market system to act.
  We pay the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world, and 
yet we are not able to purchase the identical prescription drug, the 
same pill put in the same bottle, made by the same manufacturer, from a 
pharmacist who is 5 miles north of the United States-Canada border.
  A man talked to me the other day in North Dakota. He said his wife 
had breast cancer and she has taken the drug Tamoxifen for her breast 
cancer for 5 years and has just finished. She is now off the drug. For 
5 years they traveled to Canada to buy their 90-day supply of Tamoxifen 
and bring it back across the border because they will allow 90 days of 
importation for personal use of prescription drugs. A pharmacist can't 
do it, but an individual can if they live near the border. So for 5 
years they traveled to Canada. Why? Because you can buy Tamoxifen in 
Canada for 10 percent or 20 percent of the price you will pay in the 
United States.
  Why can't a pharmacist or a distributor go to Canada and buy that 
prescription drug? It is FDA approved, a drug that is put in the same 
bottle, made by the same company.
  Another example is Lipitor. Lipitor is made in Ireland. It is one of 
the best-selling drugs in our country for the lowering of cholesterol. 
It is sent from Ireland to two places. It is made in Ireland in an FDA-
approved plant. It is sent to Winnipeg and then Grand Forks, ND, and 
all over the world, of course. But the difference between the same 
bottles that are sent to Grand Forks, ND and Winnipeg is in Winnipeg 
you will pay $1.01 per tablet, and in Grand Forks you pay $1.81 per 
tablet. What is the difference? About 100 miles and a border and a 
provision that protects the pharmaceutical industry from reimportation. 
That is helped, with respect to Australia and other countries this 
administration intends to negotiate trade agreements with, by their 
sticking in this trade agreement a provision dealing with the 
reimportation of prescription drugs. It is anticonsumer, and it shows 
how little regard those who negotiated this have for the marketplace. 
Let's let the marketplace be the arbiter of consumer prices on 
prescription drugs. Let consumers have opportunities to access 
prescription drugs in other areas where there is a safe supply.
  The Australia Free Trade Agreement is going to be passed by the 
Congress today--not with my vote, I might add, because I think it 
undercuts and potentially injures family farmers and ranchers and our 
senior citizens who need affordable prescription drugs.
  I hope that even as we do this, as the Congress addresses this issue, 
those who care about the long-term economy, long-term economic health 
of this country, opportunities and growth of this country--I hope they 
will take a hard look at these trade relationships and about our 
aggregate trade deficits that are growing alarmingly. I am not asking 
that we today do anything that is particularly radical. I am saying we 
need to address these things. Can we, will we, should we address the 
trade deficit with Europe that is growing rapidly? Should we, can we 
address the trade deficit with China that is moving rapidly up, the 
highest in the world? Mexico? Canada? Korea? Can we address any of 
those? All of them relate to American jobs.
  It is safe to say there is not one Member of the Senate who comes to 
work with a blue suit every day and takes a shower in the morning, not 
at night, because that's the nature of our job--it is safe to say there 
is not one Member of the Senate that ever lost his or her job because 
of a bad trade agreement. It is probably safe to say there is not one 
journalist in this country who consistently writes about trade issues 
and seldom talks about these trade balances. It is safe to say they 
have never lost their job because of a bad trade agreement. But we can 
talk about a lot of people who have. We have a chart that shows the 
number of people who have lost their jobs with respect to NAFTA. This 
is not my speculation; these are companies that actually applied to the 
Department of Labor as a result of laying off workers due to the North 
American Free Trade Agreement. There was a provision in NAFTA that if 
you lay off workers as a result of NAFTA, you can apply for trade 
adjustment assistance. Here are the top 100 companies certifying they 
laid off United States workers due to our trade agreement with Mexico 
and Canada--mostly Mexico in this case.
  Levi Strauss is No. 2. They laid off 15,676 people. Levis are all-
American. That is like bicycles and little red wagons, right? When you 
buy Levis these days, you are not buying American.
  Fruit of the Loom shorts and T-shirts used to be made in America. I 
always said it is one thing to lose your shirt but now Fruit of the 
Loom is gone.
  From these 100 companies alone, a couple hundred thousand people lost 
their jobs. They all had hopes, dreams, and aspirations. They love this 
country and try to do their best. They were told by any one of these 
companies, sorry, you are out of work, we are moving to Mexico.
  Next time you buy a Fig Newton cookie, guess what. You are eating 
Mexican food. Fig Newtons were made in America for a long, long, long 
time. But Fig Newtons, like Levis, like Fruit of the Loom, are now 
Mexican. When somebody says let's have Mexican food, go buy some Fig 
Newtons.
  The point is this: We had people working in all these areas producing 
these products. I will go back to the chart that I used when I began 
about what has happened in the aggregate to our trade deficit year 
after year after year. It shows this very substantial failure. All of 
these big deficits represent jobs that moved, jobs that should have 
been here but are not, jobs that could have been created here but 
weren't, or jobs that were here and left.
  Let me again say I don't believe the solution to this is putting up 
walls, deciding that we are isolationist, that this is not an 
international economy. I believe the answer to this is to finally use 
the term fairness in the context in which it ought to really mean fair 
trade for all countries. Trade agreements should be mutually 
beneficial. But these trade agreements, the ones I have described, 
consistently and relentlessly have been unfair to this country. We were 
big and strong enough in the 25 years after the Second World War to 
withstand that. We were the biggest, strongest, and best in the world, 
and we could take any country on in economic competition and beat them 
with one hand tied behind our back. After World War II, we were that 
good. As other countries grew and became stronger and better, they 
became tough international, economic competitors. Our trade policy 
never changed. It largely remained foreign policy.
  Last year, the administration's Trade Policy Review Group recommended 
take action against China, for failing to live up to its obligations on 
China trade. But the administration didn't. Why? Because the 
administration concluded that this would upset the Chinese. That is 
foreign policy; it has nothing to do with hardnosed economic policy.
  This country lives in a world in which we have incredibly tough 
competitors. It requires us, it seems to me--if we are going to 
maintain this standard of living, it requires us to care a little about 
the preservation of that standard of living, and that in turn depends 
on both the entrepreneurs and those who work, the producers and the 
workers.
  We have not done nearly what we should do in this country to stand up 
for our economic interests on international trade. I believe trade can 
be good, but much of the trade we have been engaged in in recent years 
has resulted in the largest trade deficit in history and will 
inevitably detract from this country's opportunity to grow, prosper, 
and create new jobs in the future, unless and until this Congress and 
this administration stand up and understand we need to take action

[[Page 15700]]

on behalf of our country to protect our economic interests. All I ask 
for is fair trade.
  I will vote against the Australia Free Trade Agreement because it 
contains three bad trade provisions, because we cannot get these 
removed due to fast track, which itself is an unfairness perpetrated in 
the Congress.
  My expectation is that, even without my vote, this free-trade 
agreement will pass. But I will be back to talk about trade issues in 
the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, with a sense of regret, I come to the 
Senate floor to speak in opposition to the legislation before us to 
implement the free-trade agreement negotiated by the administration 
with our good friend and ally, Australia.
  One thing I have made clear throughout my career in Government is the 
fact that I believe in free trade. As Governor of Ohio, I supported 
NAFTA and the establishment of the WTO. As a Senator, I supported 
permanent normal trade relations for China, the Andean Trade Preference 
Expansion Act, and the so-called ``fast track'' trade negotiating 
authority. I also supported our FTAs with Jordan, Chile, and Singapore.
  Until very recently, our economy has been bleeding jobs--23,000 
manufacturing jobs lost in my State of Ohio between May of 2003 and May 
of 2004, which is over half of the total 41,000 jobs lost in all 
sectors.
  While I still firmly believe in free trade, I cannot stand idly by 
while our trade laws are ignored by other countries and go unenforced 
by our own. I will no longer allow the illegal trade practices of other 
countries that put good, hard-working Americans in the unemployment 
lines to be disregarded, because that is exactly what is happening.
  When it comes to trade, China is the elephant in the room that 
everyone is afraid to acknowledge because they fear it will rear its 
ugly head. It seems as if we want to waltz with the Chinese and, for 
some reason, we are afraid to step on their toes for fear they might 
get mad.
  As I and many of my colleagues see it, the two most prevalent trade 
issues we face are the manipulation of China's currency and their 
resistance to reform and enforcement of their intellectual property 
rights laws as required by their WTO accession agreement.
  My good friend and colleague from South Carolina, Senator Lindsay 
Graham, and I held a press conference last month to highlight a finding 
in a report by the United States-China Economic and Security Review 
Commission, a Commission we in Congress created to suggest changes to 
current U.S. policies with regard to China.
  The report issued by the Commission was quite alarming, and I suggest 
that every Member of both this and the other body read the trade 
sections of that report.
  The Commission reinforces what I have been hearing from Ohio 
businesses and what I have been saying for years: China is not trading 
fairly and is hurting Ohio workers and American workers. As we know, 
since the early 1990s--this is the early 1990s--China has pegged its 
currency at 8.28 yuan per dollar, which is believed to be anywhere 
between 15 and 40 percent lower than it should.
  This action has the effect of making U.S. products more expensive 
than items produced domestically. It also makes the retail prices paid 
here in the United States for Chinese goods artificially low, 
generating less demand for our domestic products. If demand is lowered 
both here and overseas of U.S.-manufactured goods, companies will lose 
money and lay off workers. They already have.
  The Commission's report states that if China were to end its currency 
manipulation, it is believed other East Asian countries, such as Japan, 
Taiwan, and South Korea that have also manipulated their currencies in 
order to remain competitive with China, would also follow suit and end 
their manipulation.
  The Commission has arrived at a unique solution to China's currency 
manipulation. They do not believe China's currency should be floated, 
as are most developed countries' currencies, because China's banking 
system and financial markets are simply not prepared. Instead, they 
recommend that it be pegged to a ``market basket'' of several trade-
weighted currencies to avoid fluctuation of any one country. That is 
exactly the kind of ``outside the box'' thinking Congress had in mind 
when we created the Commission as part of the fiscal year 2001 Defense 
authorization bill.
  The Commission recommends that the administration take strong action 
to thwart China's exchange rate practices, something I have repeatedly 
urged the administration to do myself.
  Last fall, I introduced the Currency Harmonization Initiative through 
Neutralizing Action, CHINA, of 2003. This legislation requires the 
Secretary of the Treasury to analyze and report to Congress within 60 
days whether China is manipulating its currency to achieve an advantage 
in trade. The CHINA Act also expresses the sense of Congress that the 
administration should pursue all means available to remedy China's 
currency manipulation.
  The other pressing trade issue is China's lack of enforcement of 
intellectual property rights laws. This issue at least is getting some 
traction in the Senate. Unfortunately, not enough of my colleagues are 
aware of how bad this situation is or of how long the situation has 
persisted.
  In April 1991, China was named a priority foreign country by the USTR 
under section 301. After further investigation, the U.S. threatened to 
impose $1.5 billion in trade sanctions if an IPR agreement was not 
reached by January 1992. While that deadline was met, by 1994, the USTR 
again listed China as a priority foreign country because they failed to 
properly enforce their laws. New talks failed for almost a year before 
a new agreement regarding Chinese IPR laws was reached.
  As part of their new commitment, China agreed to take immediate steps 
within 3 months, establish mechanisms for long-term, effective 
enforcement, and provide greater market access for U.S. products. In 
1996, USTR again listed China as a priority foreign country for not 
fully complying with the latest agreement. Talks stalled until China 
was threatened with $2 billion in sanctions when they reportedly 
satisfied U.S. demands.
  However, the problem remains as estimates show the piracy rate for 
IPR-related products in China to be around 90 percent. Chinese law 
enforcement officials often lack the resources or the will needed to 
vigorously enforce IPR laws. Under the terms of the Chinese accession 
to the WTO, they were to immediately bring their IPR laws into 
compliance with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspect of 
Intellectual Property Rights.
  This also has not happened as promised. U.S. firms are still losing 
billions of dollars per year in China alone, and all we have to show 
for it is a string of broken promises that started in 1991.
  I remember being in China in 1995 with a trade mission and speaking 
to the Chinese Government about the importance of enforcing their 
intellectual property rights. They said: Yes, we are going to do it. 
Here we are, 2004, and they have not continued to do the job they are 
supposed to be doing.
  Regardless of China's staggering piracy and counterfeiting 
operations, they are far from being the only problem area in the world. 
The U.S. Trade Representative lists 18 countries as ones with which we 
have ``significant concerns'' with respect to their IPR laws and 
enforcement. In my opinion, this is far too many countries flouting 
their international obligations.
  In the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee which I chair, I held a 
hearing on April 20, 2004, that focused on intellectual property 
violations in the manufacturing sector of the economy, and another on 
December 9, 2003, which examined the ability of the Department of 
Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative to negotiate, monitor, and 
enforce our complex trade laws in a rapidly shifting global trade 
environment.
  Also, just last month, I participated in a hearing held by Chairman 
Lugar

[[Page 15701]]

in the Foreign Relations Committee which focused on China's inability 
to enforce intellectual property rights when it comes to music, films, 
and software. To quote the testimony of Jack Valenti, the head of the 
Motion Picture Association of America:

       Piracy problems are only becoming more severe. In 2002, the 
     piracy rate in China for American films, home videos, and 
     television programs was about 91 percent. In 2003, the 
     pirates captured at least 95 percent of that market. The 
     current level of piracy is worse than it has been at any time 
     since 1995 when it was 100 percent.

  But these industries are only the beginning of those suffering from 
China's disregard for international standards.
  Perhaps the greatest problem to overcome is to change the perception 
in many countries that intellectual property rights do not exist. For 
U.S. manufacturers, artists, filmmakers, and others, the protection of 
intellectual property is not an abstract concept because at stake are 
their livelihoods and those of the people who work with them and for 
them.
  We must make it clear we will not tolerate these trade violations. If 
the United States were to, in some way, violate a trade pact, the whole 
world would be beating down our door demanding we change our ways and 
pay for damages. But when we ask that countries follow the trade pacts 
to which they already agreed, we are denounced as bullies. Well, I say, 
let's be bullies.
  My concern is that we may not be able to be bullies because, as I 
learned in my hearings, we do not have the mechanism in place to 
enforce our trade laws. In other words, we do not know who we should 
bully around because we do not know who is breaking what agreement. 
Moreover, testimony indicated that our Government is not doing anything 
to help the companies that are having their intellectual property 
stolen.
  The state of enforcement is nothing short of abysmal. Amazingly, USTR 
only employs a grand total of 225 people. It has become painfully 
obvious that this is an insufficient number of employees to negotiate, 
monitor, and enforce our trade deals.
  Given the impact of changing global economic forces, it is important 
for our trade agencies to have the right people with the right skills 
and knowledge to effectively monitor and enforce our complex trade 
agreements.
  It was clear from the testimony delivered at the hearing that our 
Department of Commerce, the Customs and Border Protection Agency at the 
Department of Homeland Security, the USTR, and the rest of the 17 or 
more Federal agencies responsible for monitoring and enforcement of our 
trade agreements cannot do so effectively.
  This could accurately be described as a case of the left hand not 
knowing what the right hand is doing. In my days of service in 
government as a Senator, Governor, and mayor, I have never seen such a 
hodgepodge of agencies and departments struggle with a relatively 
simple mission to enforce our trade laws.
  Following my April hearing, I visited the Web site given as an 
example of what the Federal Government was going to do to help 
manufacturers that had become victims of counterfeiting. On that Web 
site was a telephone number, which I called. However, the person on the 
other end of the line had no idea that anyone but those with problems 
relating to immigration would ever be calling that number.
  So I called later and I told them who I was, George Voinovich, U.S. 
Senator, and that I wanted to know what resources were available to 
victims of counterfeiting, and eventually I was connected to the 
correct person. Small business owners should not have to deal with such 
nonsense when asking their Government for assistance.
  I am pleased to say that those answering the line are now aware of 
this other function. But the way it works is, if I am an Ohioan who has 
an IPR problem, I call this number and then they give me the number of 
my local Customs office and ask me to call them to begin my complaint. 
That is ridiculous. It is absolutely no help whatsoever to smaller 
manufacturers in this country.
  I have been pressuring this administration at the highest levels to 
address the many issues we have with China. In March of this year, 
along with Senators Lindsey Graham, Schumer, and Durbin, I sent a 
letter to President Bush requesting an emergency meeting with the 
President, Treasury Secretary Snow, and Ambassador Zoellick to discuss 
concrete action regarding continuing illegal undervaluation of China's 
currency. That was 5 months after I wrote to Ambassador Zoellick, 
Secretary Snow, and Commerce Secretary Evans urging them to initiate a 
301 investigation into China's practice of currency manipulation.
  The response we received from the administration? None. Nothing was 
known about the stance of this administration until April 28 of this 
year when Secretaries Snow, Chao, Evans, and Ambassador Zoellick held a 
press conference to announce they would reject a yet-to-be-filed 301 
petition requesting an investigation into China's currency 
manipulation. Needless to say, I was extremely disappointed that the 
administration would announce such a position before even receiving the 
petition documents.
  China continues to tolerate rampant piracy of copyrighted U.S. 
material, with rates of piracy running above 90 percent across all 
copyright industries for 2003.
  This year, piracy is estimated to cost U.S. industries $2.6 billion. 
Technology has made it much easier to copy or steal the engineering, 
packaging, and so forth of a product than in the past.
  I was talking with a shareholder in a golf club manufacturing outfit 
6 months ago. He said that within 3 days after they put a golf club out 
on the market they were already counterfeiting it in China and sending 
it to the United States.
  Another example, in my own State, Gorman-Rupp Company of Mansfield, 
which testified at my April hearing, since 1933 has designed and 
manufactured pumps used for many applications, including water, 
wastewater, petroleum, government uses, and agriculture. A Chinese 
company has not only copied and exploited Gorman-Rupp product manuals 
and performance specifications, but the Gorman-Rupp logo is still 
displayed on the products in the Chinese company's literature. In other 
words, this is a case where they copied the machine, the pump, to a 
``T,'' then they used the same promotional material that Gorman-Rupp 
uses for their material. They copied it line and verse and are using it 
to promote their pirated product.
  Unfortunately, patents do not protect American manufacturers.
  America's competitive edge is derived from innovation and the 
resulting steady influx of new products and services. Intellectual 
property rights protect and promote this innovative spirit. In too many 
cases with too many foreign countries, our intellectual property is the 
last edge we have because of a fundamentally unbalanced playing field.
  Many of our competitors do not have to consider environmental 
standards, labor laws, employee safety, litigation costs--and this 
Congress has to do something about litigation costs in this country. It 
is a tornado cutting through the economy and we just sit here and do 
nothing--health care costs. Losing our intellectual property is the 
last edge we have.
  The United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission 
believes the administration should file a WTO dispute on the matter of 
China's failure to protect IPR and to promulgate and enforce WTO-
required laws. To quote the report:

       Follow through and action have been limited. . . . The 
     Commission believes that immediate U.S. action is warranted.

  I hope my colleagues read the report. The Commission believes that 
immediate U.S. action is warranted on this issue. There is a sense of 
urgency. We are just going to Tweedledee Tweedledum? We have done 
nothing since 1991 on IPR and it is now 2004 and we are still doing 
nothing?
  As I said, I believe in a fair playing field in which competitive and 
comparative advantage wins the day. We cannot continue to let countries 
walk

[[Page 15702]]

all over us. The one country that everyone seems to be afraid to call 
on the carpet for flagrant violations of their international agreements 
is China. I do agree with some of my colleagues that maybe the reason 
we are not doing it is because of foreign policy decisions, but we have 
to put a stop to China's illegal and unethical trade practices.
  There are people who come into my office and literally shed tears, 
people who have been in business for years, and they are going out of 
business because of competition from China because of the fact they 
have taken their patents. So we need to do something. We have to do 
something now.
  Despite these overwhelming problems facing our Nation's 
manufacturers, I must say I have yet to see any significant action on 
behalf of the administration to respond. Now I have talked to some 
people and they say, oh, yes, George, we are working on this; we are 
talking to people; we are negotiating and we are doing this.
  Well, it is time to bring it to the surface. Let the American people 
know what they are doing instead of hiding out. Make it an issue. Let 
the Chinese know we are serious about this thing. Let them know the 
U.S. Congress is serious about it. Let them know the administration is 
serious about it. So we can get some action.
  Last month I made it known that I would not support any new trade 
agreements until there was a movement on these two fronts, and that 
makes me feel very bad. I am a free trader. I believe in free trade. 
But we do not have fair trade. Maybe the only way this Senator from 
Ohio, who has a lot of people who are on the edge of losing their 
businesses, can maybe get someone's attention in the administration to 
get out and start talking about this the way they should be so the 
American people, and particularly the voters in Ohio and the 
manufacturers and the people losing their jobs, is to say to them I 
will not support any other trade agreement on the Senate floor until 
they do something about the currency manipulation in China and the 
enforcement of intellectual property rights.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I see the Senator from South Carolina. 
I know he wants to speak so I will be succinct in my remarks.
  I have listened to the Senator from Ohio, whom I greatly respect. I 
believe there are good free-trade agreements and there are bad free-
trade agreements. I believe the proposed United States-Australia Free 
Trade Agreement is a good free-trade agreement. I intend to vote for 
it. I believe it will strengthen our economy. I believe it will create 
more jobs in the United States and it will also strengthen the historic 
close ties between our two countries.
  I have a special fondness for Australia. In 1987, when I finished two 
terms in the Governor's Mansion, our family moved to Australia and we 
lived there for 6 months, my wife and I and three teenagers and a 7-
year-old. I remember my 7-year-old son wanting to know if there would 
be McDonalds there. I remember fly fishing in Tasmania with my older 
son Drew, and thinking I was about as far from Nashville as I could get 
on Earth. I think maybe I was.
  We didn't know much about Australia when we went, but we learned 
about Australia there, and we found it a great place to learn more 
about our own country. In spite of the distance between our countries, 
our countries could not be closer. Australians and Americans are 
literally cousins, almost first cousins. We are both pioneers. We both 
started out as underprivileged people. In some cases, our ancestors 
started out as prisoners, stuck in a new place, far from home, trying 
to find a new life.
  They lived hard lives, those earlier ancestors, but each generation 
worked hard to make life better for the ones who came next. We 
successfully settled continents and, from a patchwork of natives and 
immigrants, created a unique identity, of which we are each proud.
  It is our similarities that have led us to the close relationship we 
enjoy today. Australia has been one of our staunchest allies in our 
toughest times. We stood together in World War II, in Korea, in 
Vietnam, in the first gulf war, and in Iraq today. Australia 
contributed more than 2,000 troops to the effort in Iraq and has been a 
strong supporter in the war on terror. Their F-18 fighter aircraft have 
joined ours in air strikes on enemy military targets. Few countries in 
this world have been stronger allies of ours than the Australians.
  Even before this agreement, Australia has been one of our major 
trading partners--$28 billion in two-way trade annually passes back and 
forth between the United States and Australia. In fact, the United 
States enjoys a rare trade surplus with Australia, $9 billion last 
year.
  This agreement means our relationship can only grow stronger. It is 
good for us. It is good for them. The U.S. Trade Representative 
estimates the agreement will generate at least $2 billion per year in 
dollars for both countries by the year 2010. More than 99 percent of 
United States exports of manufactured goods to Australia will become 
duty free immediately upon ratification of this agreement--the most 
significant, immediate reduction of industrial tariffs ever achieved in 
a United States free-trade agreement. Australia in turn will see the 
elimination of tariffs on more than 97 percent of its exports. U.S. 
investment in Australia will increase, and closer ties with the United 
States economy will generate investment in Australia from all over the 
world.
  I believe the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement is good 
for our economy and it is good for our alliance. It benefits the 
farmers and manufacturers and investors and citizens of Australia as 
well. It further opens the door to trade in Southeast Asia, one of the 
fastest growing regions in the world.
  I am pleased to add my voice in support of this momentous agreement 
and to celebrate the further strengthening of the tie between the 
United States and our first cousins in Australia.
  The Senate will be talking about the tobacco buyout later today. I 
will be voting for the proposed amendment when it comes up.
  Tobacco farmers in Tennessee have increasingly struggled to succeed 
under the antiquated federal supply and price controlled tobacco 
programs. I grew up in East Tennessee, and small family tobacco farms 
were a part of the lifestyle and economic vitality of that area where 
my family has lived for seven generations. Because of the Depression-
era federal tobacco programs, the number of tobacco farmers in 
Tennessee has decreased from more than 35,000 farms in 1980 to roughly 
20,000 today. Revenue has gone down by $25 million. We have 80,000 
Tennesseans who depend on quota lease payments for some part of their 
income.
  This legislation, that I intend to vote for, will provide a short 
term bridge to tobacco growers and quota holders and the communities in 
which they live. Tennesseans who own quotas will receive a fair 
transition away from lease income they have received. Growers will 
receive transition payments as well. The buyout would last over ten 
years and mean roughly $1 billion to the family farmers, quota lease 
owners, and communities in Tennessee.
  I believe if we pass this legislation that it can be combined with 
what has passed the House of Representatives to be a program that is 
fair to the tobacco growers, good for the economy and doesn't cost the 
American taxpayer one red cent. It's hard to come up with a combination 
that good very often.
  I have not been a fan historically of FDA regulation of tobacco, a 
legal product, and while I am not 100 percent satisfied with the FDA 
proposal, I am willing to accept this compromise in order to move the 
tobacco buyout forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 20 
minutes of the time under the control of the Democratic manager.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, right to the point with respect to the 
Australia trade agreement, I join my

[[Page 15703]]

friend from Tennessee in endorsing this particular trade agreement. 
Trade is what we say it is, a trade for the benefit of the particular 
countries involved. It is not aid. People wonder why we are in such 
difficulty. The difficulty lies in the proposition that the old David 
Ricardo doctrine of comparative advantage has been superseded now, not 
by any doctrine of natural advantages, such as Ricardo had in the early 
19th century when he enunciated that particular doctrine, but it is 
contrived and we are the contrivers. We are looking at them, my 
colleagues in the Senate and the House, the Government itself.
  If anybody wants to improve our position on trade, we can go right to 
the particular beef with respect to the distinguished Senator from 
Ohio. He said he called the Secretary of Treasury and asked that there 
be a petition for an investigation of China's trade practices, a 301 
proceeding. He didn't get any results.
  I see the distinguished ranking member, former chairman of our Budget 
Committee, on the floor. If you looked at 11 o'clock this morning, the 
public debt to the penny is $484 billion. Last year we ran a deficit of 
$562 billion. Don't give me this off-budget and on-budget, public 
budget, Government budget, private budget, or whatever else. No, that 
is how much more we spent than what we took in. It is already $484 
billion and I will take all bets it will exceed $600 billion.
  In fact, although they talk about the war and everything else of that 
kind, during the 5 years of World War II from 1941 to 1945, during that 
5 years we added to the debt $200 billion, in the war to end all wars. 
We add that every 4 months under this administration, some $200 
billion.
  I mean, we are up, up, and away. So when you call over to the 
Secretary of Treasury and the Secretary of Treasury calls over to the 
Minister of Finance in Beijing, China, and he says: You know, you have 
good Senators. They are on my back. They are complaining. We have to 
get something done.
  He says: Well, I am sorry, but we will have to quit, we will have to 
stop buying your bonds, quit financing your debt.
  Japan has $400 billion of this Treasury. The Chinese have over $150 
billion. So when we do not pay the bill and everybody says tax cuts, 
got to have tax cuts to get reelected--you now meet yourself coming 
around the corner. That is why you can't get the Secretary of Treasury 
to do anything on trade.
  But let me go to Australia. The general measure of a good trade 
agreement is that it is with those countries that have relatively the 
same standard of living. The reason I point this out is because they 
would be amazed for me to come up in favor of a trade agreement. They 
have me down as a textile protectionist, and I have passed four textile 
bills that have gone through the House and Senate and been vetoed by 
Presidents Carter, Reagan, and George Herbert Walker Bush.
  But be that as it may, yes, I voted for the Canadian Free Trade 
Agreement but against the Mexico Free Trade Agreement on NAFTA. Why? I 
can see my friend Senator Moynihan from New York saying: Wait a minute, 
down in Mexico they have to have a free market before they can have 
free trade.
  There was the common market approach in Europe. Before they allowed 
Greece and Portugal into the common market, they taxed them as members 
of the European Union over a period of years for $5 billion, so that it 
could develop the entities of a free market, labor rights, respected 
judiciary, property rights, and the other things that go along with 
capitalism. Obviously, Australia, we always whine. I can hear my labor 
friends: We have to have labor rights, we have to have environmental 
protection. They have better labor rights in Australia and better 
environmental protection in Australia. But they have relatively the 
same standard of living.
  Right to the point: We have a plus balance on trade. You don't get 
every one of the protections. There are some protections in there for 
beef, and there is a gradual opening. They phase out the tariff rate 
quota on dairy products over an 18-year period. And they import sugar. 
It is not liberalized in any way. That has been protected for the 
United States. Australia has maintained its monopolies on wheat, 
barley, and rice. They receive the right to maintain or restrict the 
foreign content of television programs.
  In other words, they protect local production and the 
pharmaceuticals. We thought a bill was coming up shortly with respect 
to pharmaceuticals in Australia. They subsidize the drugs for the 
population there. Therefore, they wanted to restrict drugs coming from 
Australia into the United States because they didn't want to start 
subsidizing American consumers.
  There are a few exceptions. But it is a solid agreement.
  We don't have a better friend--whether we were going into Korea, 
whether we were going into Vietnam, whether we were going into Iraq. I 
am telling you right here and now that the best friend we have ever had 
is Australia.
  We have relatively the same standard of living with different 
restrictions here, there, and yonder. If we can't get an agreement with 
them, who?
  Let me talk about another particular point. There is none better in 
the Senate than my distinguished colleague from North Dakota, Senator 
Byron Dorgan. He was talking about fairness.
  After World War II, we started the Marshall Plan, and financed the 
development of Europe and the Pacific rim countries. We sent the 
equipment, the expertise, the money, the technology, and it worked. We 
spread capitalism. It has prevailed over communism in the Cold War, and 
everybody is happy. But in that 50-year period, instead of following 
our example by giving up a good part of the textile industry, giving up 
a good part of the automobile industry, giving up a major part of the 
electronics industry--and I could go right on down the list, steel and 
otherwise--they didn't follow suit.
  When they talk about free trade, it is interesting to look at the 
1992 foreign trade barriers. Some act like we have to set the example. 
We tried that for 50 years and flunked. We have flunked the course.
  In 1992, they had 265 pages of restrictions in the foreign trade 
barriers--the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Then in 2002, 10 
years later, they had exactly 455 pages. It went up by 200 pages. Since 
I have been doing this, the Trade Representative has put out a newer 
one in smaller print. No kidding. They are clever over there. They 
don't think you are watching.
  The movement is to protectionism. How in the Lord's world do you 
think we are going to survive in a trade war? That is what we are in--
protectionism for free trade.
  The question before this body is how to get there. Come on.
  It is like world peace. Everybody is for world peace, but the best 
way to preserve the peace is to prepare for war. The best way to attain 
free trade is raise the barrier to a barrier. We then remove both. It 
is competition.
  It is trade. The word ``trade,'' free trade is an oxymoron. There is 
nothing free. There is no free lunch.
  I can tell you now in this globalization, come on. Senator, you don't 
know anything about global-
ization. You don't want to compete. You don't understand. We have 
globalized. We have globalization going on.
  Did you know that the United States of America invented 
globalization? We invented it under Alexander Hamilton. We had just won 
our freedom as a fledgling colony.
  The Brits said, Wait a minute, to Hamilton, we will trade with you 
what Britain produces best, and you in the new United States of America 
trade back with us what you produce the best. Hamilton started 
globalization. He told the Brits to bug off in his Report on 
Manufacturers.
  We started globalization, and we have continued it.
  Do you know what it takes for protectionism? We didn't even pass an 
income tax until 1913. We financed government for 100 and some years.
  Theodore Rex said, on page 21--this is the turn of the last century 
under Teddy Roosevelt.


[[Page 15704]]

       This first year of the new century found her worth twenty-
     five billion dollars more than her nearest rival, Great 
     Britain, with a gross national product more than twice that 
     of Germany and Russia. The United States was already so rich 
     in goods and services that she was more self-sustaining than 
     any industrial power in history.
       Indeed, it could consume only a fraction of what it 
     produced. The rest went overseas at prices other exporters 
     found hard to match. As Andrew Carnegie said, ``The nation 
     that makes the cheapest steel has other nations at its 
     feet.'' More than half the world's cotton, corn, copper, and 
     oil flowed from the American cornucopia, and at least one 
     third of all steel, iron, silver, and gold.
       Even if the United States were not so blessed with raw 
     materials, the excellence of her manufactured products 
     guaranteed her dominance of world markets. Current 
     advertisements in British magazines gave the impression that 
     the typical Englishman woke to the ring of an Ingersoll 
     alarm, shaved with a Gillette razor, combed his hair with 
     Vaseline tonic, buttoned his Arrow shirt, hurried downstairs 
     for Quaker Oats, California figs, and Maxwell House coffee, 
     commuted in a Westinghouse tram (body by Fisher), rose to his 
     office in an Otis elevator, and worked all day with his 
     Waterman pen under the efficient glare of Edison lightbulbs. 
     ``It only remains,'' one Fleet Street wag suggested, ``for 
     [us] to take American coal to Newcastle.'' Behind the joke 
     lay real concern: the United States was already supplying 
     beer to Germany, pottery to Bohemia, and oranges to Valencia.

  We walked into the World War II Memorial and over on the right-hand 
side you see a saying by President Roosevelt in 1942 of how we won that 
war. He gave tribute to Rosie the Riveter, the American production 
machine. That is how we built it, with protectionism.
  Now for 50 years, we have given it away. We continue to want to give 
it away and put ourselves in the hands of the Chinese and Japanese by 
not paying our bill. They are financing our debt.
  There you are. That is the reason for the situation we are in. We are 
the ones to blame. Before you open up Smith Manufacturing, you have to 
have clean air, clean war, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, minimum 
wage, plant closing notice, parental leave, safe working place, safe 
machinery, the Americans with Disabilities Act--I can keep on going. 
But you can go to China for 58 cents an hour and have none of those 
requirements.
  America is leaving and organized against us and the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce has turned into the International Chamber of Commerce. The 
multinationals are taking it over and they are all hollering, ``free 
trade,'' ``free trade,'' continuing to produce overseas, dump back into 
the United States. And we are in the hands of the Philistines; namely, 
WTO.
  Every time we bring a dumping case, they say it is violative of WTO. 
You can't sell a product at less than cost in the United States but you 
can take a foreign Lexus automobile and sell it for $35,000. That same 
automobile sells for $45,000 back in the Tokyo market. The competition 
is market share; it is not profit.
  This is a very complicated subject. We have to come to grips with it. 
There are going to be exceptions to those countries that have the same 
standard of living. You have your national interests and national 
concerns.
  I voted for free trade with Jordan. She is our only friend out there 
helping us with Israel in the Middle East. So you make those exceptions 
because it is in our national interest to do so.
  But the general rule of thumb is, it is the standard of living, and 
on trade itself, we have to get organized. We need, instead of a 
Department of Commerce, a Department of Trade and Commerce. We need to 
transfer the special Trade Representative over there. We need to start 
enforcing our laws, get a U.S. attorney, an assistant U.S. Secretary of 
the Department of Justice as we have on the antitrust division and put 
him in there in the trust division with us in trade.
  We have to get more Customs agents. We have to get in and start 
competing and quit whining against each other and understand we are not 
getting anywhere. We are going out of business every day. Exports and 
imports have been going up years on in, but, for the first time, our 
exports, now, have gone down in the last 4 years, rather than up.
  Yes, thank Heavens for the farmer. I see the American farmer on the 
floor of the Senate. Thank Heavens we have the plus balance of trade 
there. Other than that, we are not making anything anymore.
  Of course, in Europe, which was a good market, they do not want to 
buy anything from us on account of Iraq. We have turned them off. We 
are not only having to pay for Iraq in human tragedy and otherwise, but 
we have to pay for it in our trade balance now with Europe.
  I could go right on down the list. Just one word. Yesterday, I picked 
up the article with respect to William Safire. Safire said we had no 
agents in Iraq, none. I have seen one figure $30 billion and another 
figure $40 billion intelligence effort and we had nobody in Iraq. It 
reminds me when I served for 8 years on the Intelligence Committee and 
we came back in before the gulf storm--the ``we'' being Senator Bill 
Cohen and myself--and we wanted to get briefing on Saddam going into 
Kuwait. They told us the CIA didn't have anybody that could brief us. 
We had to send over to the Defense Department.
  George Tenet was the staff director at the particular time. Here, 
some 10 years later, we still don't have anybody. Do you know what they 
told me why we didn't have anybody? Because Israel will tell us. Mossad 
is the best intelligence in the world. And all of this dog chasing its 
tail about whether the intelligence was distorted or misinterpreted or 
pressured or what have you, I can tell you now the survival of Israel, 
our best friend, depends on having intelligence on what is going on in 
downtown Baghdad, all over Iraq, all over Syria, all over Iran, and in 
Egypt. They know. They got to know. And therein you do not need 
intelligence. That is the dog that didn't bark.
  My friend Bob Novak was talking about the dog that didn't bark. If 
there had been any weapons of mass destruction, our friend, Israel, 
would have said: Go there, go here, go there. They knew it. And George 
Herbert Walker Bush said:

       I firmly believe we should march into Baghdad. . . . It 
     would take us way beyond the imprimatur of the international 
     law bestowed by the resolutions of the Security Council, 
     assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely 
     entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what 
     would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war. It could only 
     plunge that part of the world into even greater instability 
     and destroy the credibility we were working so hard to 
     reestablish.

  It would turn the whole Arab world against us.
  That is where we are.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota 
for his courtesy in letting me make a brief statement before he makes 
his statement.
  I rise today to express my strong opposition to the United States-
Australia Free Trade Agreement and the legislation that has been 
introduced to implement it. This is the latest in a string of deeply 
flawed trade agreements. It is a bad deal for dairy farmers, it is a 
bad deal for consumers, and it is a bad deal for Wisconsin.
  The agreement undermines our dairy industry by displacing the 
domestic milk supply. It proposes to increase quota access to the U.S. 
market for Australia's dairy producers, while failing to address the 
flood of milk protein concentrate imports that is entering the country 
through a tariff loophole and that has been harming U.S. dairy farmers 
for some time. There can be no doubt that this agreement will put 
downward pressure on dairy prices and will further accelerate the loss 
of dairy farms in Wisconsin and across the Nation, which is something I 
have been working hard to stop.
  Wisconsin is still the No. 1 producer of cheese in the United States. 
But this agreement will hurt Wisconsin cheesemakers as they attempt to 
compete against the ever-rising flood of Australian imports. By signing 
this agreement without addressing MPCs, the administration turned a 
blind eye to the concerns of the Wisconsin dairy industry.

[[Page 15705]]

  The adverse effects of the agreement are not limited to our dairy 
farmers. During the informal mock markup, a majority of the Senate 
Finance Committee expressed concerns about safeguards to protect 
American ranchers and cattle producers from unfair imports of beef 
products. Those concerns underscore the importance of the 
administration consulting and working with Senators in the drafting of 
the implementing legislation.
  Instead of honoring the informal process set forward in the trade 
promotion authority, the administration and the Senate leadership 
ignored these concerns. The result is to further undermine the ability 
of the Senate to weigh in on trade agreements, which was already 
greatly weakened by the passage of fast-track authority.
  This is not the only problem with the trade agreement between the 
United States and Australia. As an original cosponsor of bipartisan 
legislation that would allow Americans to safely purchase prescription 
drugs from countries including Australia, I am particularly troubled by 
reports that this agreement would effectively ban reimportation of 
prescription drugs from Australia.
  In February, I wrote to the Senate Finance Committee and urged them 
to address this issue before the unamendable legislation implementing 
the trade agreement was brought to the Senate floor for a vote. Now, 
reports raise real questions about whether Congress can repeal the 
trade agreement's ban on reimportation of prescription drugs from 
Australia, even if it later passed legislation permitting 
reimportation. I do not see why we should be voting now on a trade 
agreement that would potentially tie the hands of both Australia and 
the United States on this vitally important issue.
  This legislation may well be a template for future trade agreements 
to include similar provisions that restrict the safe reimportation of 
drugs. I strongly disagree with efforts by trade negotiators to address 
an issue that Congress is currently actively considering. Congress 
should be setting policy on an issue as important as the importation 
and the reimportation of prescription drugs, not our trade negotiators.
  There continue to be many concerns about the impact of this agreement 
on the U.S. health care system, particularly the Federal programs aimed 
at helping our veterans, our seniors, and our neediest citizens. These 
questions need to be resolved to ensure access to safe and affordable 
prescription drugs.
  I have introduced a bill, S. 1994, which would address what I believe 
is one of the biggest flaws of the new Medicare prescription drug 
benefit. My bill would allow Medicare to negotiate the prices of 
prescription drugs offered under this new benefit. There is widespread 
support for giving Medicare this authority. It only makes sense we let 
Medicare use its considerable leverage to help lower the cost of 
prescription medicines for seniors. But there are questions about how 
this agreement would impact Medicare's ability to negotiate drug 
prices, should legislation such as mine be passed by Congress.
  We need more time to answer these questions and to fully understand 
the possible interaction of this agreement with legislation to allow 
the safe reimportation of prescription drugs. Trade promotion authority 
provides expedited consideration of trade agreements, but we are well 
ahead of any deadlines imposed. This Chamber could easily have waited 
until next week or even into September to consider this measure. With 
only 20 hours of debate allowed, the Senate should not have rushed 
headlong into this debate today. There is simply no excuse for Congress 
hastily taking up the Australia Free Trade Agreement before resolving 
these questions.
  The administration presented a bad deal to Congress and the American 
people. Not only will this agreement hurt Wisconsin's dairy industry, 
but the whole process has undermined Congress's constitutional 
authority over trade policy and it has weakened our ability to make 
policy. For those reasons, I will oppose the United States-Australia 
Free Trade Agreement implementing legislation, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote against this measure.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to 
the so-called United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement. This is 
really not a free-trade agreement at all. This is a negotiated trade 
agreement, and our side, once again, lost the negotiation.
  I believe the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement is one 
more example of the United States trading away its economic strength 
for some other agenda. Somebody once said: The U.S. has never lost a 
war and never won a negotiation. That certainly is true of this 
agreement.
  First, I believe the focus of our trade policy should be opening 
markets to U.S. exports where we have the most to gain. We need to 
level the playing field for our producers, and we need to open major 
markets around the world that remain closed to us. Unfortunately, that 
is not the trade policy or agenda being pursued by this administration.
  Our current trade policy is completely off course. Our negotiators 
have failed to secure a good deal for agriculture in the WTO talks. 
Instead, they have opened trade talks with countries that offer few new 
export opportunities for the United States.
  Commercial gain should drive our trade policy. But it has become 
clear that foreign policy considerations are the primary factor 
influencing our trade agenda. It is no secret here in Washington what 
this agreement is about. It is not about a trade advantage for the 
United States. It is not about improving the economic strength of 
America. This is a payoff. This is a payoff to Australia for backing 
our Iraq policy. That is what this is about.
  Not surprisingly, the results of this flawed trade policy are 
abysmal. Our trade deficits are skyrocketing. Last year, the trade 
deficit hit an all-time record of $497 billion. And this year, what do 
we anticipate? Well, it is going to be much worse.
  Mr. President and colleagues, we can look back and see what has 
happened under this trade agenda. In 1997, we had a trade deficit of 
$108 billion. That was only 7 years ago, and look what has happened. 
Every year it has jumped, and jumped dramatically. From 1998 to 1999, 
it went up almost $100 billion; from 1999 to 2000, almost $100 billion; 
from 2001 to 2002, up, up, and away again, approaching $100 billion for 
2002 to 2003. Goodness knows where it will be this year.
  These developments have serious consequences for our economy. This is 
not just numbers on a page. This is not just columns on a chart. This 
has real-world consequences for the U.S. economy.
  Earlier this year, the Washington Post carried an article expressing 
the concerns of economists about our trade and budget deficits and the 
falling value of the dollar. It reported:

       The twin trade and budget deficits are both approaching a 
     half trillion dollars, and with U.S. consumer debt also at 
     record levels, it is up to foreigners to keep the U.S. 
     economy afloat.

  Let me repeat that: ``it is up to foreigners to keep the U.S. economy 
afloat.''
  The U.S. economy now borrows $1.5 billion a day from foreign 
investors, said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist of Wells Fargo & Co., 
and that level could reach $3 billion a day in the near future.
  Where are we getting the money from? The Senator from South Carolina 
had it right. We are approaching $600 billion from Japan, $150 billion 
from China. We are even borrowing money from the so-called Caribbean 
banking centers--$80 billion from the Caribbean banking centers. And we 
have yet our tin cup out, even in South Korea. Who would have guessed 
that the mighty and powerful United States would have to go hat in hand 
to South Korea and borrow $40 billion?
  The Washington Post article went on to say:

       Currency traders fretting over that dependency have been 
     selling dollars fast and

[[Page 15706]]

     buying euros furiously. The fear is that foreigners will tire 
     of financing America's appetites. Foreign investors will dump 
     U.S. assets, especially stocks and bonds, sending financial 
     markets plummeting. Interest rates will shoot up to entice 
     them back. Heavily indebted Americans will not be able to 
     keep up with rising interest payments. Inflation, 
     bankruptcies and economic malaise will follow.

  On agricultural trade, the story, regrettably, is much the same.
  Things are getting worse, not better. Our surpluses have gotten 
steadily smaller since 1996. Always agricultural trade has been one of 
our leading areas of surplus, but that surplus is shrinking and 
shrinking steadily. Last year we had the smallest agricultural trade 
surplus since 1987. We are going full speed in reverse in every sector. 
This is an ominous warning to the American people of the direction of 
this flawed and failed trade policy.
  The fact is, this administration is not leveling the playing field 
for our producers or opening major new markets for U.S. exports. 
Instead, it is opening our markets to a flood of agricultural imports 
unfairly traded that threaten American family farmers. To me, focusing 
on this free-trade agreement and more like it and neglecting a 
successful WTO agreement is a recipe for disaster for American 
agriculture. Mark my words, friends: We are going in the wrong 
direction.
  Those with whom we compete are not playing according to some fair set 
of rules. They are subsidizing at a rate, in Europe alone, five times 
our rate here. They account for over 87 percent of the world's 
agricultural export subsidy in Europe, 30 times the rate here. And the 
results are clear. They are gaining market share year after year after 
year and now rival our own share of the world market.
  America needs to wake up to the gathering threat. I regret to say, 
this agreement with Australia is a perfect example. On agriculture, the 
United States had almost nothing to gain and a lot to lose. The simple 
fact is that Australia is never going to be a large export market for 
U.S. commodities, but it poses a serious threat to certain commodities 
produced here at home such as beef and dairy. It is very clear. Any 
objective analyst can look and see what was the opportunity for America 
and what was the threat. The threat totally overwhelms the opportunity.
  In addition, Australia has an export state trading enterprise known 
as the Australian Wheat Board. Grain growers in my State have had a 
bitter experience with these State trading enterprises. Ever since 
passage of the so-called Canadian Free Trade Agreement--again, that was 
no free-trade agreement; it was another negotiated trade agreement, and 
our side lost the negotiation there as well, especially when it came to 
agriculture--the United States has been flooded with a tidal wave of 
unfairly traded Canadian grain, undercutting our producers, 
undercutting our prices, putting our people at risk, costing my State 
nearly half a billion dollars.
  Our neighbor to the north maintains a government-sponsored monopoly 
known as the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board is the only 
exporter of western Canadian grain. It is a monopoly. It uses this 
monopoly power to undercut prices to our producers, not just in my 
State of North Dakota but in Montana, in Idaho, in Minnesota, and all 
across the northern tier of the United States, undercutting through 
unfair trade practices the family farmers who are the heart of the 
heartland of America.
  We have been fighting for 15 years to resolve problems created by the 
Canadian Wheat Board, and we have learned a bitter lesson. We have 
learned that once something is permitted in a trade agreement, it is 
virtually impossible to fix. That is why I was disappointed to learn 
that the Australia Free Trade Agreement does nothing--I hope my 
colleagues are listening--to curb the unfair trading activities of the 
Australian Wheat Board. This was a priority for many farmers. The U.S. 
wheat industry has decided to oppose this agreement because of this one 
defect alone.
  Some will argue that we have a trade surplus with Australia, and, 
therefore, it is a good country with which to enter into a trade 
agreement. That argument sounds good, but history teaches us something 
quite different. I remember so well when we debated NAFTA. I want to 
make clear my own position on trade. I supported the agreement with 
China. I supported WTO. I opposed NAFTA. I opposed the Canadian Free 
Trade Agreement because in those cases, I believed our negotiators got 
taken to the cleaners. I will tell you, our negotiators got taken to 
the cleaners on this one as well.
  The record, I believe, will be clear. Back in NAFTA, remember what we 
were told. We were told: We have a trade surplus with Mexico, and if we 
just approve this agreement, the surpluses will grow.
  We can now go back and check the record. Did the $2 billion trade 
surplus that existed with Mexico before NAFTA increase? No. Did it stay 
the same? No. There is no trade surplus with Mexico anymore. Now we 
have a trade deficit, not a small trade deficit, not $2 billion, not $4 
billion, not $8 billion, but $40 billion of trade deficit. And some 
come on this floor and call it a success. What would it take to call it 
a failure? I am amazed to hear people come out on this floor and call 
NAFTA a great success. We went from a $2 billion trade surplus to a $40 
billion trade deficit, and they call that a success? What are they 
thinking of? We are full speed in reverse in this country in terms of 
our trade position in the world.
  Trade agreements are no guarantee of trade surpluses, and opening our 
market to further import competition without creating new export 
opportunities is a serious mistake. That is exactly what this agreement 
that is before us today does when it comes to agriculture. There will 
be virtually no new agricultural exports to Australia as a result of 
this agreement. But when it comes to the American beef and dairy 
industries, there will be significant increases in imports that they 
will face--and on an unfair basis--because we know of all the hidden 
subsidies they have in Australia for those industries. We know how they 
play the game.
  I have concluded that from the perspective of the farmers and 
ranchers I represent, this agreement is a bad deal.
  Second, the mistake has been compounded by a massive loophole in 
implementing this bill with regard to beef safeguards. Ever since the 
Australia Free Trade Agreement was signed, the administration has said 
over and over that the agreement had an automatic guaranteed safeguard 
to protect our U.S. beef industry against unfairly traded imports. That 
is what they told us. That is what they told American ranchers and 
farmers, that it was automatic, that it was guaranteed. But check the 
fine print. See what they have done in the final hours. They have 
slipped you a Mickey. It is not guaranteed. It is not automatic. It is 
all subject to a waiver and a decision by one person who doesn't happen 
to be in the Congress of the United States.
  We were told that the industry would not have to worry if imports of 
Australian beef surged or prices in this country plummeted. The 
safeguards were automatic and were guaranteed.
  But now we find the safeguard is not automatic and not guaranteed. In 
fact, this safeguard has a loophole big enough to drive a cattle truck 
through. The implementing bill before us specifies that the USTR can 
waive the beef safeguards whenever it determines that extraordinary 
market conditions make it in the national interest to do so.
  Here is what it says:

       The United States Trade Representative is authorized to 
     waive the application of this subsection if the Trade 
     Representative determines that extraordinary market 
     conditions demonstrate that a waiver would be in the national 
     interest of the United States.

  Who decides? The Trade Representative of the United States. That is 
not what the Constitution says. The Constitution doesn't say the Trade 
Representative decides these questions of international commerce. The 
Constitution of the United States says:

       The Congress shall have power . . . to regulate commerce 
     with foreign nations. . . .

  Not the Trade Representative or Ambassador, but the Congress. And the

[[Page 15707]]

Congress has given away its responsibility in these free-trade 
agreements with the fast-track procedure. We have done that based on a 
promise that is being violated in this agreement for the first time in 
a trade agreement.
  Listen well, my friends. Listen well. Understand what is about to 
happen on the floor of the Senate. For the first time, in an 
unprecedented way, the role of Congress is being further reduced. The 
legislation before us does not require the Trade Representative to even 
consider the effect on the beef industry of waiving the safeguards. If 
he or she determines that a lower price for hamburger is in the 
national interest, it can waive the safeguard, even if doing so clearly 
injures the U.S. beef industry, which the safeguards are supposed to 
protect. The legislation doesn't give Congress, the body charged in our 
Constitution with regulating tariffs, any meaningful say in this 
decision.
  As I show on this chart, Article I, section 8 of the Constitution 
says Congress shall have the power. In this agreement, it is the Trade 
Representative who has the power. The statement of administrative 
action says, ``The United States Trade Representative will notify 
Congress of its decision to waive the safeguard at least 5 days before 
the waiver goes into effect.''
  The Congress shall have the power to get a 5-day notice of what the 
Trade Representative has decided. That is not what the Constitution of 
the United States intended. It didn't intend for a Trade Representative 
to give 5 days' notice to the Congress of the United States before 
their decision is made, with no role for the Congress of the United 
States. That is not what the Constitution says.
  This agreement does not in any way commit the USTR to even listen if 
the Congress expresses concerns or objections. I don't think that is 
right. I don't think that is how this agreement had been sold to the 
American people. I know that is not the way it was sold to the ranchers 
and farmers of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and every 
other State. They were told there was automatic guaranteed protection 
for them.
  That is why, when the Finance Committee conducted its markup of the 
Australia agreement 2 weeks ago, I offered an amendment. My amendment 
insisted that Congress have a say before the Trade Representative 
decides unilaterally to waive this safeguard.
  This is where it gets interesting, because my amendment was adopted 
on a vote of 11-10. Here is the vote: 11 votes for the Conrad 
amendment, 10 votes in opposition. The Conrad amendment is not in the 
agreement that is before us. Have you ever heard of that happening 
before? Have you ever heard of an amendment passing in a committee that 
has jurisdiction and it is excluded when it comes out here on the 
floor? It is as though those 11 Senators never voted.
  The administration ignored the amendment passed in the Finance 
Committee and, as a result, the legislation before us contains the very 
same loophole that was rejected by a majority of the Senate Finance 
Committee. That is profoundly unfair to America's ranchers and 
cattlemen. It ignores the express will of the Senate Finance Committee, 
and it is yet another example of why I have concluded this legislation 
is a bad deal.
  Before moving on to discuss why I find this process so troubling, let 
me address one other issue that has been raised with respect to my 
amendment. Some have argued that my beef safeguard amendment was 
unconstitutional. That argument is simply a red herring designed to 
avoid a discussion of the merits of the amendment. I have yet to hear 
anyone argue that Congress should not have any say before the U.S. 
Trade Representative unilaterally waives the safeguard that was 
promised to America's cattlemen. The Finance Committee has a long 
history of considering conceptual amendments rather than requiring 
legislative language. That is how the Finance Committee of the United 
States does its work. We offer conceptual amendments that are later 
translated into legal language. That is the way it works.
  My amendment said fundamentally that Congress must act before the 
U.S. Trade Representative can waive the safeguards promised to the beef 
industry. I have consulted with the Congressional Research Service, 
because one of their staff members asserted there might be a 
constitutional problem with what I proposed. I now have a memo from the 
very same gentleman who raised the constitutional question saying there 
were at least two ways to take my conceptual amendment and make it 
constitutionally permissible. But that is not what happened. As I have 
said, CRS has concluded in a memo to me that the concept expressed in 
my amendment could have been implemented in at least two ways without 
raising any constitutional problems.
  First, the Conrad amendment could have been implemented through the 
statement of administrative action. The statement of administrative 
action is a document submitted to the Congress that explains the 
agreement on how the administration intends to implement it. Since the 
statement of administrative action is an executive branch document, it 
explains how the executive branch will choose to operate. No separation 
of powers problems would exist.
  Moreover, this is precisely how a commitment to Senator Baucus with 
respect to the beef safeguard was implemented. It was not included in 
the legislation. It was put in the statement of administrative action.
  Alternatively, it would have been entirely consistent with my 
amendment to implement it through a congressional disapproval process. 
This process is very familiar to Senators. For years, the Congress 
voted annually on a resolution extending normal trade relations, or 
most-favored-nation status, as it was then called, treatment for China. 
There has never been any question that this waiver process was fully 
constitutional. Thus, had there been any interest in making my 
amendment work, it would have been easy to find a way to do it.
  So I can only conclude that those who talk about the Constitution are 
simply avoiding the real issue. The real issue is whether the U.S. 
Trade Representative should be given the power unilaterally to revoke a 
safeguard that was sold to our beef producers as an absolutely 
automatic guaranteed protection against surges of unfairly traded 
Australian beef imports that would damage our U.S. beef industry.
  On that issue, a majority of the committee clearly said no. They 
didn't just say no, they voted no. I have yet to hear anyone make a 
persuasive argument why the USTR should be able to unilaterally take 
away this safeguard. It is unfair to those who supported my amendment. 
The process was short-circuited to drop the Conrad amendment. In 
particular, it is unfair to our ranchers and cattlemen to take away 
that safeguard.
  Let me address the process the Finance Committee followed in dropping 
my amendment, and why it is so troubling.
  The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is a fine man. He is, in 
fact, a good friend of mine. But with all respect to the chairman, the 
process that was followed to subvert the will of the majority of this 
committee was egregious. It sets a very dangerous precedent that 
threatens the underpinnings of the fast-track process.
  As all Members of this body already know, the Constitution gives the 
Congress--not the President--the responsibility for regulating foreign 
trade. Yet in recognition that we cannot have 535 trade negotiators, 
the Congress has agreed to the fast-track process for considering trade 
agreements.
  In agreeing to fast track, each Senator gives up the most fundamental 
rights of a Senator. We give up our right to amend, the most 
fundamental right of all Senators. And we give up our right to extended 
debate, a second of the most fundamental rights of any Senator. In 
essence, we are giving up our right to protect our constituents.
  In return, there is supposed to be a detailed consultation--a 
detailed consultation--with the Congress throughout the process of 
negotiating trade agreements and developing the implementing 
legislation.

[[Page 15708]]

  In practice, the Finance Committee in the Senate is the focus of this 
consultation because the Finance Committee has jurisdiction over trade 
policy. In theory, the committee has extensive input during the process 
of negotiating trade agreements and developing the legislation to 
implement them. Theoretically, it does not then need to amend the 
implementing bill once it is formally introduced.
  Understand, here we are on the floor of the Senate. There is a 
treaty. Normally, every Senator would have the right to offer 
amendments to it. We would have the right to extended debate. We have 
given up those rights under the fast-track process. We do not have the 
right to amend. This bill will be considered in less than 20 hours. 
There is not the right to extended discussion, to illuminate, to 
educate so that people fully understand what is happening. Those 
fundamental rights of any Senator have been given up in the fast-track 
process.
  When it comes to developing the implementing bill, this consultation 
occurs through what is known as the mock markup process because it is 
not a real markup because we have given up those rights. Instead, we 
have what is called a mock markup. The mock markup is the Finance 
Committee's opportunity to amend the implementing bill before it is 
formally introduced, and then cannot be amended under fast-track rules.
  This informal process has a long history. For past agreements, the 
process has lasted months and produced a host of changes. To give just 
one example, 14 amendments were adopted during the mock markup of the 
North American Free Trade Agreement. The amendments added during mock 
markups were addressed in a mock conference and then included in the 
final formal implementing bill. I recall this history to make several 
points because people need to understand what is happening.
  Everything has changed. We have never dealt with a trade matter in 
the way we are dealing with it today. My colleagues need to understand 
the consequences of what is about to happen because they are enormously 
serious for every Senator, and they are enormously consequential for 
this country.
  First, in the past, the committees have always insisted on sufficient 
time for all members of the committee to review the draft implementing 
bill and have their concerns addressed.
  Second, it is not at all unusual for changes to be made, for 
amendments to be made during the mock markup process, including many 
that did not have the support of the administration.
  Third, when the mock markup process produced changes, it did not 
spell doom for the agreement.
  Fourth and finally, the chairman of the Finance Committee did not 
vote down the package simply because it included a provision with which 
the administration or the chairman disagreed.
  But what happened during the mock markup of this bill, the Australia 
free trade agreement, threatens to make a mockery--a mockery--of the 
process of congressional consultation. In the Australia agreement, we 
got the bum's rush.
  The agreement was completed on February 13, but we did not see 
implementing legislation until June 18. More than 4 months went by with 
no implementing bill to review. And then after 4 months of delay, we 
were told we would have 4 business days before the mock markup to 
respond to a provision on the beef safeguards that was totally 
unexpected.
  When I indicated my intent to offer an amendment, the Trade 
Representative made clear that my input was unwelcome. He simply did 
not want to entertain a serious substantive concern that is important 
to the ranchers and cattlemen whom I represent. Yet addressing these 
concerns before an unamendable fast-track bill is precisely the purpose 
of the mock markup process. That is the whole point of going through 
this exercise, is to give Senators a chance in the committee of 
jurisdiction to make changes if they prevail in a vote.
  I did prevail in a vote. My side won, but it is not in this 
agreement. That has never happened before. Mr. President, I say to 
Senators, they better think long and hard about what that means. They 
better think long and hard about what that means for the process. They 
better think long and hard about what that means for fast track because 
if this trade of giving up our right to amend and our right to extended 
debate is a hollow one without meaning, that there is supposed to be a 
congressional consultation, that there is supposed to be a parallel 
process that allows Senators to alter the package before it comes to 
this floor, if that is all hollow, if that is all a sham, if that is 
all a phony exercise, then Senators better think long and hard about 
giving up that power to amend and that right to extended debate because 
the rest of this process has become an absolute sham.
  I offered my amendment. It prevailed on an 11-to-10 vote, but the 
normal process was not allowed to play out. Instead, the committee 
followed the unprecedented course of voting down the amended 
recommendation in its entirety. Then the administration submitted its 
original proposal all over again without the amendment. That is good; 
that is arrogant.
  In essence, what the administration is saying is that voting down a 
recommendation is tantamount to approving it. They are ignoring the 
clearly expressed will of a majority of the members when it comes to 
the language on beef safeguards. It is like voting down a bill on the 
Senate floor after it has been amended and trying to claim that defeat 
is the same as adopting the bill that was originally brought to the 
floor. What a sham.
  That strikes me as dangerous. It opens the process to abuse, and it 
reduces the committee's role in crafting trade policy. It may have been 
expedient in this instance, but I believe that we will come to regret 
this precedent and this day. It invites a future President to ignore 
any recommendations made by the committee on future trade-implementing 
legislation.
  Remember what the Constitution says? The power is with the Congress 
on the question of regulating commerce with foreign nations.
  This is not a dictatorship. This is not a circumstance where the 
power was vested by the Constitution of the United States in the 
President of the United States. The Constitution of the United States 
says:

       The Congress shall have the power . . . to regulate 
     commerce with foreign nations. . . .

  The Australia Free Trade Agreement promises few, if any, benefits to 
U.S. agriculture and has little or no positive effect on our overall 
economy or perilously large trade deficits. Instead, it puts certain 
sectors of American agriculture at extreme risk.
  Before I move on, I remind my colleagues that the fast-track process 
is up for renewal next year. To the extent that it becomes clear to 
colleagues that the consultation promised in the fast-track process is 
a sham, a snare, and a dilution, it will become infinitely more 
difficult to extend fast track. Who is going to want to give up their 
right to amend, who is going to want to give up their right to extended 
debate, if there is no right to serious consultation by the committees 
of jurisdiction; if it is all just a game and there is no meaning to 
votes that are cast? That is what is about to happen. It is a sham.
  Moreover, the safeguards that were supposed to protect ranchers and 
cattlemen from excessive and unfairly traded Australian imports turned 
out to be a false promise. They are not automatic or guaranteed as 
promised. Instead, they can be waived at any time without any input 
from Congress. That is unfair to our ranchers, our beef industry.
  Finally, the process that the Finance Committee followed sets a 
terrible precedent. No Senator should welcome the precedent that the 
administration can simply ignore the votes of the committee of 
jurisdiction on a particular trade issue important to the people we 
represent, secure in the knowledge that a trade-implementing bill can 
be pushed through as part of a larger take-it-or-leave-it package.
  For all of these reasons, I will strongly oppose the Australia Free 
Trade Agreement that is before us.

[[Page 15709]]

  I conclude by saying to my colleagues if anybody does not think we 
are setting a precedent that has enormous consequences down the road, 
think again. I have been here long enough to see what happens when this 
is done. For the purpose of expedient action one year, that precedent 
can grow like a cancer. Right now, I believe what is being done is so 
egregious and so wrong that it sows the seeds for undermining the 
entire fast-track procedure.
  When Senators awaken to what is being done, I think they will be very 
reluctant to give up their fundamental rights to amend legislation 
implementing a trade agreement. I think they will be very reluctant to 
give up their right to extended debate. Those are the most fundamental 
rights of any Senator.
  There is a reason those rights were extended to Senators. It is so 
they can protect the rights of the minority, so they could slow down a 
process so people could think carefully about the effects and the 
implications of legislation before this body. That is the fundamental 
constitutional role of the Senate. It is being jeopardized by this 
fast-track process that has become not just a fast track, it has become 
a railroad job.
  When votes do not matter, when consultation does not matter, when one 
person decides the commerce with foreign nations, this country and this 
body has gone off the track.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I was hoping that the Senator from North 
Dakota would stay around. First, I support the Australia Free Trade 
Agreement because it is for the sole purpose that it is in the economic 
interest of the United States of America. I do it within our 
constitutional power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. I do 
it in the tradition of the last 70 years, since the 1930s, of the 
United States doing everything it could to lead the rest of the world 
in the reduction of barriers to trade; to enhance not only the economy 
of the United States of America but the economy of the entire world.
  Let no one have any doubt in their mind, this is in the economic 
interest of the United States and that is the only thing the United 
States ought to be considering as we consider this legislation.
  The charge was made that the only reason we are doing this is because 
of the friendship of Australia and their support in our efforts in 
Iraq. If I can do something in the economic interest of the United 
States and at the same time enhance our relationships and show our 
respect for a friend in the world community of nations, I am not going 
to back away from doing that, because through almost 100 years of the 
involvement of the United States in military activity for the promotion 
of peace and liberty around the world Australia has been an ally on 
which we could count.
  Australia is not going to agree to this agreement because they might 
like the United States of America. Australia is going to look at this 
and ask: Is it in their economic interest? Now, their administration 
has already said that it is because it is signed. I do not know whether 
Congress has acted down in Australia, but nobody is going to be 
concerned about the economic interests of America except Americans and 
the elected representatives of America. Nobody is going to be concerned 
about the economic interests of Australia except the people of 
Australia and their elected representatives.
  It just happens that everything does not have to be black and white, 
that when we do things in public policy and in international trade and 
in our foreign relations sometimes things can be done to accomplish 
more than one thing, and it happens that we have an opportunity in this 
vote today not only to do something in the economic interests of the 
United States of America but also to enhance our relationship with a 
friend in the world.
  From a member of a political party who is always badmouthing our 
President of the United States because he is engaged in world 
activities, military activities without seeking enough help from other 
nations and from the United Nations, I think it is talking out of both 
sides of your mouth when you condemn us for trying to do something for 
a nation that has been a friend of ours--in this case, Australia.
  The other thing I noticed about the debate that just went on is the 
charts that have been put up all afternoon by people on the other side 
of the aisle bemoaning the unfavorable balance of trade we have. What 
do they want to do? Do they want to tell the consumers of America that 
you cannot buy from anywhere in the world you want? Why do we have the 
balance of trade we do? It is because the U.S. consumers are king and 
they can do anything they want to do and they are doing it. They are 
exercising their economic freedom. They are also exercising the 
opportunity of the marketplace to buy from what they think is the place 
to get the best quality for a certain price. That opportunity happens 
to be enhanced the greater the competition. The freer the trade around 
the world and the fairer the trade around the world, the more 
opportunities there are for our consumers to buy whatever they want to 
buy, of the quality they want, at what they consider a fair price.
  I don't know that any Member of this Congress who has been 
complaining about the unfavorable balance of trade has introduced any 
legislation saying the consumers of America cannot buy this product or 
that product. Are they going to tell the consumers of North Dakota what 
they can buy or not buy? Are they going to certify to their people that 
their judgment as political leaders is better than the judgment of the 
consumer of America and the marketplace, including the consumer of 
North Dakota? I don't see them doing that.
  The other thing is, why do we have an unfavorable balance of trade? 
One of the reasons is the people of America are not saving as much. But 
what do we get from the other side of the aisle when it comes to giving 
the taxpayers of America an opportunity to have more discretionary 
income? We hear complaints from the other side of the aisle that this 
side of the aisle is giving too many tax cuts because they happen to 
believe that 535 Members of Congress are smarter and better able to 
decide how to spend the money than the 130 million taxpayers of 
America. I don't believe that. But when taxes are high, there is less 
discretion for savings, and it impacts negatively upon our balance of 
trade.
  The other thing I wonder about, with the other side of the aisle 
talking about the high trade deficit--one-third of that trade deficit 
comes from the importation of energy into America, mostly petroleum. We 
had an energy bill up last November, and that energy bill is defeated 
by a filibuster on the other side of the aisle. When we want to set an 
energy policy, so we import less energy, so we reduce our unfavorable 
balance of trade to some extent, they deliver 13 out of 49 Democrats to 
break a filibuster. When they want to kill the confirmation of judges 
who the President appoints, they can deliver 46 out of 49 Democrat 
votes to kill those judges. But when their own leader votes for a 
motion to bring about a national energy policy so we are not importing 
so much energy, so the balance of trade is not so unfavorable, what do 
we get from the other side? They don't even support their own leader 
when he says he needs it for his State.
  So don't complain about the unfavorable balance of trade in America 
when you espouse policies that tend to make it worse, or question the 
wisdom of the consumers of America, to put your judgment above the 
judgment of 280 million people in America, that you know more than they 
do about what they ought to be doing with their money.
  Now I want to address whether Congress is giving up constitutional 
power. I am addressing specifically the accusation that has been made 
by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, who just finished his 
remarks. First of all, I have yet to see the memo obtained by Senator 
Conrad from the Congressional Research Service which he says supports 
his claim that his

[[Page 15710]]

amendment could be made constitutional. But in any event, with respect 
to his argument that one way to implement his amendment in a 
constitutional fashion would be in the statement of administrative 
action--and it is on that point that I want to comment--this is 
precisely the type of revisionist history that I warned of earlier, 
yesterday, in our committee meeting.
  I read from the amendment that he put before the committee:

       The amendment enhances the consultation requirement in the 
     waiver provisions by adding a requirement in paragraphs 
     202(c)(4) and 202(d)(5) that the Finance and the Ways and 
     Means Committees must both affirmatively approve a proposed 
     waiver before the USTR can waive the application of a 
     safeguard.

  This amendment calls for specific changes to two sections of the 
implementing legislation. How could language added, then, to the 
statement of administrative action possibly effectuate this amendment, 
which calls for changes to the implementing bill? The answer is, very 
clearly it couldn't. But even if it could, this argument ignores the 
fact that the statement of administrative action is a statement of 
administrative action, not a statement of congressional action. But the 
amendment calls for action by two committees of Congress, not for 
action by the administration.
  I would like to remind my colleague from North Dakota of the 
principle of separation of powers. In fact, that principle underlies 
the Supreme Court Chadha case and is the reason why the amendment as 
drafted and as voted on by the Finance Committee is unconstitutional. 
So any argument that the statement of administrative action offered a 
way to implement the amendment in a constitutional way is without 
merit.
  What about the argument that the amendment could have been 
implemented in a constitutional way if requirements for action by the 
full Congress and presentation to the President for his signature were 
added, according to the decision of Chadha? In effect, under this 
interpretation, the amendment would require additional legislation to 
be enacted before a beef safeguard measure could be waived. That is the 
only way you could remain consistent with our Constitution. And it 
requires a contorted reading of the language of the amendment that was 
actually introduced and was voted on by the committee that day.
  But let us assume that a legislative procedure was intended by the 
amendment, as contorted as that may be. The problem is, such a 
procedure conflicts with the obligations assumed by the United States 
in annex 3(a) of the agreement. In sections (b)(4) and (c)(5) of annex 
3(a), the United States commits to retain the discretion not to apply a 
beef safeguard measure.
  If the President is required to wait for congressional action before 
granting a waiver, that deprives the administration of the discretion 
to grant a waiver. Even if the amendment were to be implemented 
consistent with the U.S. Constitution, it would at the same time be 
inconsistent with the terms of the agreement.
  Again, we see this amendment for what it truly is. It was political 
maneuvering, pure and simple. It was intended to obstruct the process. 
It was intended to force the administration to explain its rejection of 
an unconstitutional amendment or, based on these new arguments about 
constitutionality, the administration would be forced to explain its 
rejection of an amendment that was inconsistent with the agreement.
  In either case, the administration's rejection of the amendment would 
have been used by some to argue that the trade promotion authority 
process was flawed, that the administration ignored the will of the 
Finance Committee.
  They would have also argued that the administration had not done 
enough to protect the U.S. beef industry from imports, an allegation 
that is completely without merit if you read the terms of this 
agreement.
  Any way that you revise the reading of the amendment, its purpose was 
to delay formal consideration of the bill and give opponents a 
political issue to try to exploit.
  Again, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I did not want to see 
that happen. I wanted to end the obstructionism, end the political 
gamesmanship, and end the consideration of an unconstitutional 
amendment.
  The majority of the committee voiced their will, and the amended 
recommendation was not approved. The trade promotion authority process 
was on and the process moved forward, leading us to the consideration 
of this very important legislation today, much in the economic 
interests of our people.
  Again, I call on my colleagues to recognize the value of the 
underlying agreement with Australia and to support the implementation 
bill when we vote on it in a short period of time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be brief. I thank my colleague 
from Iowa. I don't want to get into a debate about the Energy bill 
right now. We have our differences there. The only point I would make 
is, without six Members on his side of the aisle, we never would have 
succeeded. It was not just this side of the aisle.
  I definitely want to reduce energy dependence, as do most of my 
colleagues. The bill had virtually no conservation, which many of us 
are for. I am for both new production and conservation. The bill had no 
conservation, and, of course, there is the ``e'' word which is very 
good for Iowa but not so good for New York. I will not get into the 
``e'' word issue here. But there are different ways to increase 
conservation.
  In the views of many of us, this bill was not a bill that would have 
reduced energy dependence the way it should have. Certainly, it didn't 
get much bang for the buck. I don't want to get into a debate with my 
colleague. I know we all want to vote. I appreciate the sincerity and 
eloquence which he brings to all of the debates. I enjoy having them 
with him, but today we will not.
  I rise reluctantly against the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement 
before us today, for one reason only. There have been other issues with 
this agreement. In my State, we are very concerned about dairy. But I 
think the people who put the agreement together were mindful of that. 
While the dairy farmers of New York State are not overwhelmingly 
pleased with the provisions in the agreement, they believe they have 
come a long way. I think the agreement does do some good for 
manufacturing export, and I care about that. But what bothers me is one 
provision in this agreement. It bothers me so that it leads me to vote 
against the agreement; that is, the provision dealing with the 
importation of drugs.
  It has become clear in recent weeks that the pharmaceutical industry 
has not only done everything in its power to thwart drug reimportation 
legislation before this Congress, but now they have hijacked the trade 
agreement negotiation process as well. That practice has to end.
  Given that we have fast-tracked, many of us, when we see an odious 
provision put into the agreement, have no choice but to vote it down 
and hope it will come back without that provision. Frankly, that 
provision has very little to do with the guts of the Australia Free 
Trade Agreement. Prescription drug reimportation is a policy that has 
gained more and more bipartisan support as this year has progressed. My 
guess is that if, say, the bill from the Senator from North Dakota 
would get a vote on the floor, it would pass. It would pass in a 
bipartisan way. That, of course, is because the cost of drugs is going 
through the roof, and it is harder and harder for our citizens to pay 
for these miracle drugs. They are great drugs. I salute the 
pharmaceutical industry for coming up with them.
  But one of the great problems we face is that the research is borne 
not by the citizens of the world but only by the citizens of the United 
States, even though the drugs are sold throughout the world. We have to 
do something to change that.
  But as usually happens these days, as a proconsumer idea such as 
reimportation gains more and more momentum and support, the 
pharmaceutical industry begins to see the writing on the

[[Page 15711]]

wall, and they look for every way possible to prevent it from becoming 
reality.
  Now it seems, of all things, the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement 
has become the perfect vehicle to begin the march to put the kibosh on 
importation.
  It is no longer enough that this administration refuses to stand up 
to PhRMA and negotiate lower drug prices.
  The Medicare prescription drug bill, now law, that we have before us, 
is a failure. It is not even being mentioned by the President in his 
campaign because they refuse to let Medicare negotiate with the 
pharmaceutical industry for lower prices. That costs about $200 
billion, and that means there was not enough money to create a good 
program. But that is not enough.
  Now that we have come up with another way to deal with the high cost 
of drugs, reimportation, the administration actively, through trade 
agreements, is helping the big drug companies ensure that they can get 
the same exorbitant prices in every market around the globe, and at the 
same time putting up a barrier around our borders to prevent lower drug 
costs from coming in. That has gone too far.
  The administration says it is unacceptable that foreign price 
controls leave American consumers paying most of the cost of 
pharmaceutical research and development--I couldn't agree more. That 
hits the nail on the head.
  We have to relieve U.S. consumers of some of the burdens of the cost 
of research and development by making sure that other equally developed 
countries pay their fair share. But that is not what we are talking 
about with the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Absolutely not.
  What the administration is doing is giving the drug companies the 
tools to raise prices in other countries while pushing policies that 
keep low drug costs out of this country.
  Is that fair? Does that provide any relief to the American consumer? 
Absolutely not.
  I have heard the argument that this provision doesn't have a 
practical effect because the Australian Government doesn't allow the 
exportation of its drugs anyway.
  First of all, if you look closely at the way it is written, it isn't 
limited to restricting importation from Australia.
  As they say in Shakespeare, there's the rub.
  If they really were just concerned with Australia, they would say 
nothing in this provision would affect importation anywhere else. But 
that is not the case.
  This proposal creates an obligation for the United States to pass 
laws that prohibit importation not just from Australia but from 
everywhere, including Canada.
  If it truly doesn't have a practical effect, or if it is not 
reasonable to assume that Australia would hold us to our obligations--
who knows--for all we know, the Australian Government could make a deal 
with the pharmaceutical company to lower their prices--why is the 
provision in the agreement at all?
  Why aren't pharmaceuticals at least exempted? Everyone knows what is 
going on in this Chamber about reimportation. Everyone knows what is 
going on in this country. In my State of New York, citizens from 
Buffalo, Rochester, the North Country, and even New York City get on 
buses and go for hours to buy drugs in Canada.
  If this provision has no practical effect in this trade agreement, 
then its only purpose must be to make it more difficult to pass a drug 
importation bill. It can and might become precedential--we have it in 
Australia; we should put it elsewhere.
  The provision was put in the Australia Free Trade Agreement to set a 
precedent, to lay the groundwork. The Industry Advisory Committee to 
the USTR on these issues has clearly stated this purpose. Their report 
states that ``each individual FTA should be viewed as setting a new 
baseline for future FTA/s''--that this should be setting a floor, not a 
ceiling.
  If that is the case, that is bad news for the millions of Americans 
who must pay for prescription drugs and had hoped lower costs of 
imported drugs would prevail.
  Simply put, this provision fortifies the administration's opposition 
to importation and makes the law that much harder to change. Beyond 
that, this trade agreement may even affect our ability to negotiate 
prices in the few programs in which the Federal Government still has 
some control.
  The provision is nothing more than a backdoor opportunity to protect 
the big pharmaceutical companies' profits and keep drug prices high for 
U.S. consumers. I have had some talks with the heads of the 
pharmaceutical industries. Some of the more forward-looking progressive 
ones realize that something has to give; that the U.S. consumer cannot 
pay for the cost of research for drugs for the whole world; that the 
prices are getting so high that we have to do something; that the 
balance between the dollars of profit that are put into research versus 
the balance of dollars that are put into all kinds of salesmanship has 
to change. I hope those leaders in industry understand that putting 
this provision in this agreement undercuts that kind of view.
  The nature of trade agreements is changing. They are not just about 
tariffs anymore. They are getting into other substantive policy issues 
which dictate the parameters for health care delivery around the world.
  These are fundamental policy decisions with serious implications for 
access to affordable health care which can and will affect millions of 
people both overseas and, of course, here at home. Yet PhRMA is the 
only health care expert at the table for these negotiations. That has 
to end.
  I also argue that adding provisions such as this, virtually 
extraneous provisions that come from someone else's agenda, and putting 
them into trade agreements hurts the argument for fast track. This is 
just what people who are opposing fast track said would happen. Here it 
is, a year later, it has.
  There are all kinds of questions swirling about how this trade 
agreement may affect Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and DOD programs, and 
to be honest, no one seems to be able to explain what its effects on 
these programs will be.
  My view is we cannot, we must not wait until after these agreements 
are put together to consider their potential effects on U.S. policy. I 
warn my colleagues, vote for this and then you find out that you have 
locked yourself into something on drug policy that you never imagined. 
This Member is not going to do that. This Senator is not going to do 
that.
  This provision can be stripped from the agreement and we can come 
back and pass it next week, next month. We cannot have it as an 
afterthought--something we are all scrambling to understand the day 
before the vote.
  Frankly, drugs are not the same as tractors. There are huge public 
health implications to the decisions made by the USTR. It is 
frightening to think these decisions are being made without the input 
of a neutral public health advisory committee. We have to put an end to 
the practice of PhRMA inserting provisions into trade agreements that 
affect policy elsewhere. There must be someone at the table to protect 
access to affordable drugs and other health care in this country. The 
risks are too great to ignore.
  For that reason, I will vote no on this agreement in the hopes we can 
strip out this odious provision and then move forward with the proposal 
which I will then support.
  I ask unanimous consent that a related article from the New York 
Times be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, July 12, 2004]

            Trade Pact May Undercut Inexpensive Drug Imports

                 (By Elizabeth Becker and Robert Pear)

       Washington, July 11.--Congress is poised to approve an 
     international trade agreement that have the effect of 
     thwarting a goal pursued by many lawmakers of both parties: 
     the import of inexpensive prescription drugs to help millions 
     of Americans without health insurance.
       The agreement, negotiated with Australia by the Bush 
     administration, would allow pharmaceutical companies to 
     prevent imports of drugs to the United States and also

[[Page 15712]]

     to challenge decisions by Australia about what drugs should 
     be covered by the country's health plan, the prices paid for 
     them and how they can be used.
       It represents the administration's model for strengthening 
     the protection of expensive brand-name drugs in wealthy 
     countries, where the biggest profits can be made.
       In negotiating the pact, the United States, for the first 
     time, challenged how a foreign industrialized country 
     operates its national health program to provide inexpensive 
     drugs to its own citizens. Americans without insurance pay 
     some of the world's highest prices for brand-name 
     prescription drugs, in part because the United States does 
     not have such a plan.
       Only in the last few weeks have lawmakers realized that the 
     proposed Australia trade agreement--the Bush administration's 
     first free trade agreement with a developed country--could 
     have major implications for health policy and programs in the 
     United States.
       The debate over drug imports, an issue with immense 
     political appeal, has been raging for four years, with little 
     reference to the arcane details of trade policy. Most trade 
     agreements are so complex that lawmakers rarely investigate 
     all the provisions, which typically cover such diverse areas 
     as manufacturing, tourism, insurance, agriculture and, 
     increasingly, pharmaceuticals.
       Bush administration officials oppose legalizing imports of 
     inexpensive prescription drugs, citing safety concerns. 
     Instead, with strong backing from the pharmaceutical 
     industry, they have said they want to raise the price of 
     drugs overseas to spread the burden of research and 
     development that is borne disproportionately by the United 
     States.
       Many Democrats, with the support of AARP, consumer groups 
     and a substantial number of Republicans, are promoting 
     legislation to lower drug costs by importing less expensive 
     medicines from Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan and other 
     countries where prices are regulated through public health 
     programs.
       These two competing approaches represent very different 
     ways of helping Americans who typically pay much more for 
     brand-name prescription drugs than people in the rest of the 
     industrialized world.
       Leaders in both houses of Congress hope to approve the free 
     trade agreement in the next week or two. Last Thursday, the 
     House Ways and Means Committee endorsed the pact, which 
     promises to increase American manufacturing exports by as 
     much as $2 billion a year and preserve jobs here.
       Health advocates and officials in developing countries have 
     intensely debated the effects of trade deals on the ability 
     of poor nations to provide inexpensive generic drugs to their 
     citizens, especially those with AIDS.
       But in Congress, the significance of the agreement for 
     health policy has generally been lost in the trade debate.
       The chief sponsor of the Senate bill, Senator Byron L. 
     Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, said: ``This administration 
     opposes re-importation even to the extent of writing barriers 
     to it into its trade agreements. I don't understand why our 
     trade ambassador is inserting this prohibition into trade 
     agreements before Congress settles the issue.''
       Senator John McCain, an author of the drug-import bill, 
     sees the agreement with Australia as hampering consumers' 
     access to drugs from other countries. His spokesman said the 
     senator worried that ``it only protects powerful special 
     interests.''
       Gary C. Hufbauer, a senior analyst at the Institute for 
     International Economics, said ``the Australia free trade 
     agreement is a skirmish in a larger war'' over how to reduce 
     the huge difference in prices paid for drugs in the United 
     States and the rest of the industrialized world.
       Kevin Outterson, an associate law professor at West 
     Virginia University, agreed.
       ``The United States has put a marker down and is now using 
     trade agreements to tell countries how they can reimburse 
     their own citizens for prescription drugs,'' he said.
       The United States does not import any significant amount of 
     low-cost prescription drugs from Australia, in part because 
     federal laws effectively prohibit such imports. But a number 
     of states are considering imports from Australia and Canada, 
     as a way to save money, and American officials have made 
     clear that the Australia agreement sets a precedent they hope 
     to follow in negotiations with other countries.
       Trade experts and the pharmaceutical industry offer no 
     assurance that drug prices will fall in the United States if 
     they rise abroad.
       Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the senior 
     Democrat on the panel's trade subcommittee, voted for the 
     agreement, which could help industries in his state. But Mr. 
     Levin said the trade pact would give a potent weapon to 
     opponents of the drug-import bill, who could argue that 
     ``passing it would violate our international obligations.''
       Such violations could lead to trade sanctions costing the 
     United States and its exporters millions of dollars.
       One provision of the trade agreement with Australia 
     protects the right of patent owners, like drug companies, to 
     ``prevent importation'' of products on which they own the 
     patents. Mr. Dorgan's bill would eliminate this right.
       The trade pact is ``almost completely inconsistent with 
     drug-import bills'' that have broad support in Congress, Mr. 
     Levin said.
       But Representative Bill Thomas, the California Republican 
     who is chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said, ``The 
     only workable procedure is to write trade agreements 
     according to current law.''
       For years, drug companies have objected to Australia's 
     Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, under which government 
     officials decide which drugs to cover and how much to pay for 
     them. Before the government decides whether to cover a drug, 
     experts analyze its clinical benefits, safety and ``cost 
     effectiveness,'' compared with other treatments.
       The trade pact would allow drug companies to challenge 
     decisions on coverage and payment.
       Joseph M. Damond, an associate vice president of the 
     Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said 
     Australia's drug benefit system amounted to an unfair trade 
     practice.
       ``The solution is to get rid of these artificial price 
     controls in other developed countries and create real 
     marketplace incentives for innovation,'' Mr. Damond said.
       While the trade pact has barely been noticed here, it has 
     touched off an impassioned national debate in Australia, 
     where the Parliament is also close to approving it.
       The Australian trade minister, Mark Vaile, promised that 
     ``there is nothing in the free trade agreement that would 
     increase drug prices in Australia.''
       But a recent report from a committee of the Australian 
     Parliament saw a serious possibility that ``Australians would 
     pay more for certain medicines,'' and that drug companies 
     would gain more leverage over government decisions there.
       Bush administration officials noted that the Trade Act of 
     2002 said its negotiators should try to eliminate price 
     controls and other regulations that limit access to foreign 
     markets.
       Dr. Mark B. McClellan, the former commissioner of food and 
     drugs now in charge of Medicare and Medicaid, said last year 
     that foreign price controls left American consumers paying 
     most of the cost of pharmaceutical research and development, 
     and that, he said, was unacceptable.


  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the United States-Australia Free Trade 
Agreement negotiated by the administration is not perfect. The 
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee 
would agree with me on that point.
  It is often said around here that we should not let the perfect be 
the enemy of the good. This agreement for which we vote on implementing 
legislation today passes the ``good'' test, but barely.
  Throughout my career in public service, I have been an ardent 
supporter of free trade. Opening markets to the free flow of goods and 
services benefits America, benefits our trading partners. Trade 
liberalization creates jobs, expands economic growth, and provides 
consumers with access to lower cost goods and services. The North 
American Free Trade Agreement, despite criticism from some, has 
increased our cross-border trade between our northern and southern 
neighbors by incredible amounts of money, creating economic growth and 
prosperity on both sides of the border.
  In my judgment, free trade should mean truly free trade. There are 
some portions of this agreement which take admirable steps in that 
direction. For example, over 99 percent of the manufactured goods 
traded between our two countries--manufactured goods--will be duty and 
quota free and textile and apparel tariffs will be phased out.
  According to the International Trade Commission, U.S. consumers will 
receive a net welfare benefit increase of between $438 million and $639 
million if the agreement is fully implemented.
  Ideally, this free-trade agreement would reach 100-percent duty-free 
treatment and tariff elimination immediately but I recognize that may 
not be possible.
  What I find truly offensive are protections for special interests 
such as dairy, beef, and sugar. Even these protections, however, pale 
in comparison with the language in this agreement that covers patented 
pharmaceutical products.
  I am astonished by the decision of the U.S. Trade Representative, Mr. 
Zoellick, for whom I happen to have the greatest admiration and 
appreciation. I am astonished that he would include language which 
would impair our

[[Page 15713]]

ability to pass and implement drug importation legislation.
  The Singapore Free Trade Agreement, which went into effect on January 
1, was the first free-trade agreement to include language that could 
impact drug importation. In a side letter of understanding between our 
respective Trade Representatives, both nations agreed the language 
would not prevent Singapore from engaging in the parallel importation 
of pharmaceuticals. Thus, the U.S. Trade Representative effectively 
made the provisions applicable only to the United States.
  USTR claims this language is consistent with longstanding U.S. patent 
law. If that is indeed the case, and if Singapore is not obligated to 
abide by the language, then why is the language included in the 
agreement? I suspect it was included in order to protect powerful 
special interests and to provide a template on which to base 
intellectual property provisions in future free-trade agreements.
  In fact, the Industry Sector Advisory Committee for Chemicals and 
Allied Products, which advised U.S. negotiators on this provision, 
stated that this language ``should not be viewed as setting any 
ceilings for the intellectual property chapters for future free-trade 
agreements; rather, each individual free-trade agreement should be 
viewed as setting a new baseline for future free-trade agreements.''
  This pharmaceutical language was slipped into the Singapore FTA below 
the radar screen, without recognition of its potential implications for 
drug importation. Since that time, similar drug provisions have cropped 
up again in both the Australia FTA before us and the recently completed 
Morocco FTA.
  Let's be clear about this language. It is antithetical to the spirit 
of free trade and serves only to block American consumers from 
accessing lower cost goods and services.
  Not only does the intellectual property language in the Australia FTA 
offend all free traders, it also contravenes clear congressional 
intent. Let's look at the facts. In 2000, Congress passed the Medicine 
Equity and Drug Safety Act, MEDS Act, to allow American consumers to 
import lower cost prescription drugs from 25 industrialized countries 
with regulatory systems similar to ours. Although language added to 
that law acted as a poison pill and effectively prevented importation 
from taking place, congressional intent was crystal clear: We want to 
allow Americans to import safe prescription drugs.
  In the years after the MEDS Act passed, the cost of prescription 
drugs has continued to rise, the number of uninsured Americans has 
continued to grow, and Congress has continued to debate the issue of 
drug importation. This week, a study from Boston University found that 
drug spending, as a share of income, rose by 50 percent between 1998 
and 2002.
  In the last 3 years, several additional importation measures have 
passed both Houses of Congress with substantial bipartisan support. In 
States, cities, and counties across the country, governments are 
implementing programs that would allow their residents to import lower 
cost prescription drugs. Today, approximately two-thirds of Americans 
believe they should be able to import lower cost drugs.
  Where does this leave us? Congress has repeatedly voted, with 
bipartisan majorities, to allow drug importation. States and local 
governments are doing the same. An overwhelming majority of Americans 
believe they have a right to import cheaper medicine. AARP, the leading 
advocacy group for senior citizens, recently joined the battle.
  So a simple question comes to mind: What is our U.S. Trade 
Representative, who is charged with representing the interests of the 
American people, doing? Why deliberately include language in bilateral 
trade agreements that could thwart importation efforts? Why flagrantly 
disregard the intent of Americans and their elected representatives? It 
seems to me that the special interests have found friendly territory.
  Now, supporters of this language will claim that nothing in this 
agreement prevents the Congress from passing legislation with respect 
to drug importation. They are absolutely correct. No trade agreement 
can prevent Congress from exercising its constitutional right to pass 
laws that govern our Nation. However, the language in this trade 
agreement does tie the hands of Congress, further complicating our 
efforts to pass a drug importation law.
  The USTR general counsel, John Veroneau, testified along these lines 
last month. He told the House Ways and Means Committee that new 
legislation on drug importation ``could give rise to an inconsistency 
between U.S. law and a commitment under this trade agreement.'' Given 
that similar language is now in not one but three trade agreements, it 
will presumably present the same problem for each.
  Let's be intellectually honest here. It is simply bad policy to enter 
into bilateral agreements knowing we want to modify domestic law and 
thereby place ourselves in violation of these various agreements. 
Imagine Americans' response if they knew that domestic health care 
policy was being crafted not by their elected officials in Congress 
but, instead, by free-trade negotiators.
  Now that this language is in three agreements, a precedent has been 
established for future FTAs. Indeed, USTR officials have indicated they 
intend to pursue similar language in all future FTAs. This means that 
future drug importation legislation will leave us in violation of our 
obligations to an ever greater number of trading partners and allies, 
undoubtedly creating a greater challenge to enacting and implementing 
importation law.
  When Americans wonder how this continues to happen, maybe they should 
take a glance at the list of intellectual property ``advisors'' who 
worked with the negotiators. These advisors include representatives 
from--guess who--drug companies--guess who--the pharmaceutical industry 
as a whole, and other lobbyists with a direct interest in blocking drug 
importation. How many public health and consumer advocacy groups were 
included on this committee? Zero.
  There is a popular philosophy among coaches known as game slippage 
which offers that you can make your team practice all you want, but, 
invariably, come gametime, some of what was taught in practice will not 
be applied during the game. I fear the administration is suffering from 
game slippage. It appears that Congress's intent over the last several 
years to address drug importation has slipped from the collective 
conscience of the administration and the U.S. Trade Representative when 
negotiating gametime comes around.
  Our trade negotiators must be less mindful of special interests and 
more responsive to the express intent of the Congress. We granted the 
President trade promotion authority in 2002 to demonstrate our Nation's 
reenergized commitment to negotiating strong free-trade agreements. TPA 
was designed to lead to free trade, not more protection. Yet we have 
protectionist measures in this FTA for the pharmaceutical, sugar, beef, 
and dairy industries that will likely result in higher prices and, in 
some cases, less supply.
  This agreement is not the first in which the administration has made 
use of TPA to promote its legislative priorities. Last year, 
immigration provisions were included in the Singapore and Chile FTAs. 
If the administration is to continue to enjoy the privilege of TPA, 
trade agreements must no longer be vehicles that include items 
rightfully addressed by Congress under the Constitution.
  The United States has been and should be the leading promoter of an 
open global marketplace. Steel tariffs, agricultural subsidies in the 
farm bill, and other forms of protection, however, have damaged 
America's free-trade credentials. If special interest carve-outs, as 
the one for the pharmaceutical industry in this FTA, continue to 
pollute our trade agreements, we will all be worse off. Our economy 
will suffer and our leadership role on trade will further decline.
  I have spoken at length about the very serious drawbacks of the 
Australia FTA. I will reluctantly support

[[Page 15714]]

this implementing legislation because it, nevertheless, will have a net 
positive impact on the American economy. I also will vote for it 
because of my profound respect for the Government and the people of 
Australia. They have bravely stood by us for many decades and have 
shown enormous courage in helping us to fight the global war on terror. 
We are privileged to call the Australian people friends, and my 
comments here today should in no way reflect poorly on the proud nation 
with which we will embark on a new trading relationship.
  Mr. President, I will vote yes. But the administration must 
understand that continuing down a protectionist path harms American 
consumers and engenders ill will among our allies and trading partners. 
I support passage of this legislation, but should another FTA being 
negotiated now or in the future come before the Senate with similar 
protections for special interests, I will find it extremely difficult 
to do so again.


                            FSC/ETI Tax Bill

  Mr. President, before I continue, I would like to mention just a word 
about the FSC/ETI tax bill that we apparently have an agreement to go 
to conference.
  The June 19 editorial in the Washington Times, not known for liberal 
propaganda, stated:

       The ideal solution would have been a quick, simple repeal 
     of FSC-ETI, which is bad economic policy in any case. . . .

  Unfortunately, both the House and the Senate versions of the bill 
became magnets for special interests. A steady train of lobbyists 
tacked on $167 billion in tax breaks over the next 10 years to the 
Senate bill, while the House bill expanded by $143 billion in similar 
additions. The Senate bill, for example, includes breaks for NASCAR 
racetracks and foreign dog-race gamblers, while the House version 
lavishes its attention upon tobacco growers, timber owners and alcohol 
distillers. The imminent House-Senate conference, predictably, promises 
to be a de facto food fight between congressmen, lobbyists and tax 
watchdogs. And so while the lobbyists duke it out, EU sanctions will 
continue to rise, and American manufacturers and the U.S. economy will 
deal with the consequences.
  There are many other editorials about how incredible this bill has 
become and how we have lost any possible sense of what we are doing to 
our deficit and to the American people. If we pass this bill in its 
present form, I will do whatever I can to make sure every American 
knows what we have done here for the special interests in this town. 
Despite the passage of campaign finance reform, they rule in a way 
which is almost unprecedented at least in the 22 years I have been a 
Member of Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is an order in effect allowing 2 
minutes per side on the matter that will follow the Australia Free 
Trade Agreement, the tobacco amendment. I ask unanimous consent that 
there be a total of 4 minutes on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, when would this time 
begin?
  Mr. REID. I would say through the Chair to my friend, we are going to 
vote immediately on the free-trade agreement. We yield back any time on 
this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield back time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the third reading and 
passage of the bill.
  The bill (H.R. 4759) was ordered to a third reading and was read the 
third time.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to support the United States-
Australia Free Trade Agreement. I do so because it is good for the 
cause of free and fair trade, it is good for the United States, and it 
is good for Utah.
  I wish to commend my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee, 
particularly Chairman Grassley and ranking minority member Baucus. They 
have assiduously worked with the administration to complete the 
legislation implementing years of negotiations. Working with our 
colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, we have prepared 
legislation that, I believe, will pass overwhelmingly in both Houses. 
That it does so reflects on the strengths of this agreement, and on the 
hard work of members in both committees. To date, the process for 
putting this agreement in place has been fair. Members have been given 
ample opportunity to voice any concerns they may have about the 
substance of this agreement both on the Senate floor and in briefings 
with the U.S. Trade Representative's office. No one can legitimately 
say this has been a partisan process. No one can legitimately say they 
have not had a chance to review and comment on this historic agreement.
  However, this agreement would not have been completed had Congress 
failed to provide the President with fast-track trade promotion 
authority. These agreements are complex, and the interests are vast, 
and, as we know, Congress can slow the process by endlessly nitpicking 
details for political advantage. Without trade promotion authority 
granted by a majority of this body to the President in 2002, the 
President would have failed to advance his agenda of creating American 
jobs by leveraging the strength of our economy into free and fair trade 
regimes created by us.
  Toward that last point, I wish to commend the small team at the 
United States Trade Representative's Office, led by the extremely able 
Robert Zoellick, for their work through these years in advancing the 
President's free trade agenda. The Australia Free Trade Agreement 
before the Senate will boost our economy while advancing bilateral 
relations with our strongest partner in Asia as a result of the 
dedication of Bob Zoellick and the people at USTR.
  Australia stood with us in our foreign policy challenges throughout 
the 20th century. In the beginning of this century, which was marked so 
soon after by the attacks of September 11, and our response with the 
global war on terror and the war to destroy the regime of Saddam 
Hussein, Australia has continued to stand with us. We have a history of 
friendship, based on shared civic values of democracy, individual 
freedom and free markets. We have no closer ally in Asia.
  Of course this is not a sufficient reason to grant a free trade 
agreement, or FTA. The necessary and sufficient agreements in granting 
FTAs have to do with opening markets in a way that will fairly allow 
U.S. products to compete. I am pleased to observe that in this area, 
the Australia FTA does a superb job. In fact, the Australia FTA 
eliminates 99 percent of Australia's manufacturing tariffs immediately, 
giving U.S. firms an average 5 percent price advantage over 
international competitors in the Australian market. As well, the FTA 
grants tariff-free access to Australia's agricultural market for U.S. 
exporters, grants enhanced preferential access to U.S. services 
exporters to Australia, and removes foreign investment screening for 
several types of U.S. investment.
  For my home State, this FTA gives Utah businesses a distinct 
advantage over their international rivals when trading with Australia. 
Australia's market is the 12th largest market for Utah goods, with 
total exports valued at over $67 million in 2003. The implementation of 
the Australia FTA will provide a large boost to Utah's auto

[[Page 15715]]

parts, processed foods, sports equipment and medical equipment 
companies. These important and large industries within the State of 
Utah will now be able to export 99 percent of their goods to without 
facing manufacturing tariffs, this gives them, on average, a 5 percent 
price advantage over international competitors in the Australian 
market.
  There are nine Australian-owned companies currently operating in Utah 
which insource several hundred jobs for Utahns. In all, there are over 
320 jobs in Utah that are directly supported by trade with Australia, 
and hundreds more that are indirectly supported by Australian trade.
  No agreement is perfect, whether it is with a developing economy, or 
a modern and developed economy, like Australia's. This FTA will provide 
an immediate opening to Australia's large market for agricultural 
products from our States. Currently, our prolific U.S. agricultural 
producers export more than $400 million in products to Australia.
  In terms of granting access for Australian beef, the agreement allows 
for us to increase the beef import quota over an 18-year period. Quota 
increases to be granted in the first 3 years are conditional upon U.S. 
beef exports reaching 2003 levels, so that Australian beef exporters 
will not be able to exploit recent drops in U.S. beef exports caused by 
the mad cow scare. While quotas within tariffs will be removed, above-
quota tariffs will also be phased out over time. The Congressional 
Research Service reports that ``initial quota increases represent an 
estimated $50 million in additional imports--less than \1/4\ of 1 
percent of the value of annual U.S. beef output, and 1.6 percent of the 
value of U.S. beef imports.'' In addition, the agreement provides 
safeguards that will protect U.S. beef producers from surges in imports 
from Australia. These safeguards are permanent and apply to the 
transition periods, as well as after the transition periods.
  This agreement is going to be good for the American economy. In 
addition to manufacturing and agricultural products, it provides an 
immediate opening in Australian markets for financial services, 
electronic commerce and U.S. investment. In the latter category, we 
should appreciate the implications of allowing U.S. investment to now 
use Australia as a base for greater expansion into the rapidly growing 
Asian markets. The benefits of this FTA to the U.S. economy equate to 
about $500 million per year. This translates into more U.S. jobs.
  And, for me, this is the bottom line. Economic policymakers both in 
Congress and in President Bush's administration recognize that the most 
fundamental goal of economic policy is to support the economy and 
create American jobs. American workers, farmers and cattlemen are the 
most industrious and productive in the world. That is why, as the U.S. 
has expanded trade regimes based on the principles of fairness and 
transparency that define our economy, the U.S. has always been a net 
winner. The rest of the world wants to buy our goods because they are 
the best quality at the most affordable prices. The rest of the world 
wants to sell in our markets, because to do so, they must create 
products that compete in the most open and efficient market in the 
world. Successful U.S. free trade agreements protect our principles, 
advance our values, and provide opportunity for all those who compete 
fairly. And fair competition is something the citizens of Utah support. 
For these reasons and more I support the swift approval of this 
implementing legislation.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the United 
States-Australia Free Trade Agreement. I maintain reservations about 
certain sections of this agreement, but overall I believe that this 
free-trade agreement succeeds in lowering tariffs on American goods 
entering Australia and will benefit my home State of Illinois.
  The United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement, FTA, includes 
strong and comprehensive commitments by Australia to open their goods, 
agricultural and services markets to U.S. producers. The agreement 
would reduce a number of tariffs and duties currently affecting trade 
between the United States and Australia, reduce barriers for services 
and increase protections for intellectual property.
  Under the trade agreement, as ratified by the bill, more than 99 
percent of U.S. exports of manufactured goods to Australia would become 
duty-free immediately upon entry into force of the agreement. This is 
good for our country because increasing exports means more jobs here at 
home. This is beneficial to U.S. manufacturers, who expect to realize 
an additional $2 billion in exports a year.
  Australia is a major trade and investment partner of the U.S. and is 
the ninth largest market for the export of U.S. goods, with a total 
trade close to $28 billion last year. Australia purchases more goods 
from the U.S. than any other country, and the U.S. enjoys a bilateral 
trade surplus of $9 billion. This is quite a difference from the $130 
billion dollar trade deficit we have with China.
  My home State of Illinois will benefit from the U.S.-Australia FTA. 
In 2003, Illinois' export shipments of merchandise to Australia totaled 
$925 million and Australia is the sixth largest export market for 
Illinois in 2003. Australia is an important market for Illinois goods 
as Illinois exports to Australia have grown significantly during a time 
when Illinois exports have fallen. While exports of goods from Illinois 
to Australia grew 12 percent over the 1999-2003 period, exports from 
the States to the world declined 10 percent over the same time.
  Illinois exports range from agricultural and construction machinery, 
to engines, turbines and power transmission equipment, to motor vehicle 
parts, to general purpose machinery and to agricultural products. In 
short, people through nearly every sector of our economy will benefit 
from this agreement.
  Illinois has lost 140,000 manufacturing jobs since January 2001 to 
many countries who do not have the same labor and environmental 
standards as the U.S. However, labor and environment have not been a 
source of controversy in this FTA. The Australian and U.S. economies 
are both modern and industrialized, and are at similar levels of 
development and environmental standards. In fact, Australia has a 
higher minimum wage than the U.S.
  This agreement also extends protections for all forms of intellectual 
property rights. Australia agrees to extend the longevity of copyrights 
in order to accord protections to existing U.S. standards. Both 
countries also agree to ratify two international treaties involving 
recorded music and copyrights.
  This agreement also gives our farmers new opportunities. All U.S. 
agricultural exports to Australia totaling more than $400 million will 
receive immediate duty-free access. Key agricultural products that will 
benefit from immediate tariff elimination include soybeans and oilseed 
products, fresh and processed fruits, vegetables and nuts, and pork 
products.
  In addition, Australia also agreed to resolve outstanding sanitary 
and phytosanitary, SPS, disputes, chiefly affecting U.S. pork, citrus 
and corn. Since conclusion of the negotiations, Australia has taken 
steps to lift the SPS barrier against U.S. pork. This is good news for 
the many pork producers in Illinois.
  While some of the provisions in these FTAs could serve as a model for 
other agreements, a number of provisions clearly cannot be, nor should 
they be. I believe that each country with whom we negotiate is unique; 
and while the provisions contained in the Australia FTA work for 
Australia, they may not be appropriate for FTAs with other countries, 
where there may exist very different circumstances.
  Concerns about labor and environmental standards, however, should 
receive careful scrutiny on a case-by-case basis as different 
circumstances and situations warrant. Use of the ``enforce your own 
law'' standard is invalid as a precedent--indeed is a contradiction to 
the purpose of promoting enforceable core labor standards--when a 
country's

[[Page 15716]]

laws clearly do not reflect international standards and when there is a 
history, not only of nonenforcement, but of a hostile environment 
towards the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively. 
Using a standard in totally different circumstances will lead to 
totally different results. Many of us support the Australia Free Trade 
Agreement not only because they have good labor laws, but because they 
have the ability and willingness to enforce them.
  I also noted that all commodities were not included in this FTA and 
that sugar was excluded. This exclusion should not be a precedent for 
future trade agreements as this could inhibit other export-oriented 
industries from their opportunity to win market access in future FTAs.
  Without a doubt, there are parts of this agreement that I feel are 
less than perfect. This agreement has one very troublesome aspect to 
it, which has U.S. pharmaceutical industry fingerprints all over it.
  This agreement gives the exclusive right of a patent holder to 
prevent the importation of a patented product without the consent of 
the patent holder.
  By including this provision in this agreement, the ban on 
reimportation of prescription drugs into the United States becomes more 
than just a U.S. law, it becomes a matter of trade law.
  That means that we are giving another country the right to challenge 
us if we pass the important Dorgan-Snowe bill allowing Americans to 
reimport prescription drugs from other countries, many of which have 
cheaper prices than the U.S. for the same drugs.
  Congress is currently considering several bills to allow Americans to 
safely reimport prescription drugs from other countries. In fact, there 
was just a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee about this issue 
and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee will 
mark up a proposal next week.
  Why then is the trade negotiator for the Bush administration 
negotiating an issue that is being actively debated in Congress? 
Allowing this language in this agreement is effectively end-running the 
legislative branch.
  On July 23, John Veroneau, general counsel for the Office of the U.S. 
Trade Representative, confirmed that new legislation on drug 
reimportation ``could give rise to an inconsistency between U.S. law 
and a commitment under this trade agreement.''
  Once again, the Bush administration has chosen big pharmaceutical 
companies over the American people. Prescription drug prices are rising 
between 14 and 19 percent per year, making already expensive drugs 
unaffordable for some. As Congress searches for solutions, the Bush 
administration is preserving the protections from international price 
competition for the prescription drug industry.
  Further, this agreement may jeopardize the lower prices the Veterans 
Administration and Medicaid are currently able to negotiate. Under 
Article 15.11 of the agreement, ``suppliers'' have the right to 
challenge VA procurement decisions, including listing and pricing 
pharmaceuticals.
  I do think, because of the positive provisions in this FTA relating 
to manufacturing, agriculture services, that we should approve this 
agreement. However, my vote for the Australia FTA should not be 
interpreted as support for using this agreement as a model for future 
trade negotiations. I will evaluate all future trade agreements on 
their merits and their applicability to each country. We need to ensure 
that core international labor rights and environmental standards are 
addressed in a meaningful manner and the rights of American consumers 
are protected.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the writing appears to be on the wall where 
the U.S. Australia Free Trade Agreement is concerned. I suspect it will 
pass this body by a substantial margin. Still, I want to take a few 
moments to reflect on this agreement and what it may mean for 
Wisconsin.
  Wisconsin has about 16,000 dairy farms. Altogether, production and 
processing activities in the state generate close to $20 billion in 
economic activity. Dairy accounts for about 200,000 Wisconsin jobs. I 
could go on at length, but my colleagues already know that I care 
deeply about Wisconsin agriculture and the families who depend on 
dairy.
  And that is why I will vote against the U.S.-Australia Free Trade 
Agreement. While the final agreement maintains over-quota tariffs on 
dairy products, I remain very concerned that the overall effect on 
dairy farmers will be negative, particularly as it affects cheese 
markets which are of critical importance to Wisconsin dairy.
  I am also concerned that this agreement sets up roadblocks for us to 
pass legislation that would allow Americans to buy less expensive 
prescription drugs from other countries. It includes a provision that 
protects the current right of drug companies to prevent importation of 
its patented drugs by other parties, in this case, parties in 
Australia.
  I understand that his provision will have no practical effect in 
Australia, since Australian law already prohibits drug exports. 
However, I am concerned about the dangerous precedence this sets. A 
bipartisan majority in Congress supports legislation to allow drug 
importation from other countries, and I believe that at some point, it 
will be the law of the land.
  Even though it may not matter for Australia, the United States will 
likely seek trade agreements with other countries in the future that do 
allow exports. The pharmaceutical industry must be put on notice that 
this kind of end-run around the will of Congress is not acceptable. And 
the administration must be put on notice that future trade agreements 
will have a hard time getting approval if we see these kinds of 
provisions again.
  Trade negotiations, simply put, are nothing more than an elaborate 
process of setting priorities and making trade offs. Where the U.S.-
Australia trade agreement is concerned, it seems clear to me that U.S. 
negotiators were willing to trade quite a bit away in order to protect 
and promote the interests of pharmaceutical manufacturers.
  Unfortunately, dairy interests ended up on the wrong side of that 
deal. And though we avoided disaster after several of us made a final 
push to get our negotiators to focus on the impact their deals could 
have on our dairy industry, avoiding disaster is not enough to 
recommend the final agreement. This implementing bill does not 
improve--and probably harms--the chances for Wisconsin dairy producers 
to enhance their markets. As such, I cannot support it.
  I believe in free and fair trade. But this bill implements neither of 
those principles. The massive benefits won by the pharmaceutical 
industry were not free, they were bought by concessions from other 
industries, dairy and I am sure others of importance in my colleagues' 
States. And the economic balance struck by the deal--where some favored 
industries do well at the expense of others--is not fair. I urge my 
colleagues to look carefully at the trade-offs this deal represents 
before casting your vote.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments by my 
colleagues on the importance of U.S. beef and the impact upon it by 
this Agreement. The U.S. cattle industry is a cornerstone of rural 
America. Virtually every rural community in America is supported, in 
some way, by domestic beef production. This is especially true in 
Montana, where cattle and beef account for 25 percent of our State's 
economy. Nearly half of our State's economy depends on agriculture, 
overall. Since it's pretty tough to survive on one-half of an economy, 
it's easy to see how important this industry is to Montana. The cattle 
industry creates thousands of jobs and supports thousands of families.
  This is why I fought so hard to ensure that this agreement reflected 
the particular needs and interests of Montana and U.S. cattlemen. When 
the administration first indicated their intention to negotiate an 
agreement with Australia, I was frankly concerned.

[[Page 15717]]

Australia is one of the world's largest exporters of beef, offering a 
relatively small consumer market in exchange for access to ours.
  I was faced with a choice. I could oppose the agreement from the 
beginning, or I could engage the process and try to forge as strong an 
agreement as possible. Opposing the agreement from the beginning would 
mean taking myself out of the process. At that point, I would be unable 
to best defend the interests of my constituents who had much at stake 
in the negotiations. Engaging the process would allow me a seat at the 
table, and an opportunity to insist on provisions that preserve the 
interests of Montana's cattlemen. Thus, engagement was the better 
choice.
  After nearly a year and a half of tough negotiations, including 
countless meetings and conversations with U.S. negotiators, and 
Australian officials, as well, I am satisfied that we got as good a 
deal as we could. The agreement treats beef as a particularly sensitive 
product, taking into account the loss of U.S. global exports due to the 
discovery last year of BSE. It provides a long transition period for 
duty phase-out, and a slow, gradual increase in beef access to 
Australia. Most importantly, the agreement creates two safeguards that 
are triggered automatically whenever the volume or price-based 
conditions are met.
  While the administration is given authority to waive the application 
of a safeguard--if certain, rare conditions are met--I also worked with 
Ambassador Zoellick and his staff to establish procedural requirements 
that must be met before a safeguard could be waived.
  All in all, I am confident that the provisions in the agreement are 
strong and adequate. Still, our efforts illustrate the importance of 
these issues, not just for this FTA but for future agreements, as well. 
The United States traditionally exports 10 percent of its beef 
production, and this figure was growing until our export markets were 
blocked in the wake of last December's discovery of a single dairy cow 
infected with BSE.
  Clearly, expanded trade is important to the U.S. cattle industry. 
Yet, extreme distortions in global beef markets pose a serious threat 
to the future of U.S. ranchers. All the hard work in the world won't 
amount to a hill of beans if we don't tackle the sources of these 
distortions--such as massive subsidies, high tariffs, and the like. I 
ask that a position paper, describing distortions in the global cattle 
and beef markets, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Grossly Distorted Global Cattle and Beef Markets--Harming U.S. Cattle 
 and Beef Producers and Rural America: Immediate Steps Needed To Level 
                           the Playing Field


                            i. introduction

       The global market place for cattle and beef trade is 
     amongst the most heavily distorted of any sector of economic 
     activity. The distortions have seriously harmed US cattle 
     producers by reducing prices paid for U.S. product in the 
     U.S. and around the world and by limiting export 
     opportunities other than the United States for other major 
     producing nations. The domestic cattle industry suffered 
     staggering losses since the early 1990s measured in the 
     billions of dollars, with more than 100,000 cattle ranches 
     and farms ceasing operation or ceasing handling cattle in 
     that time. The decline of the cattle industry in America--the 
     largest part of American agriculture, has decimated rural 
     communities across the country which depend on a healthy 
     agricultural sector for survival.
       While the United States market is very open (we are the 
     largest importing nation despite being the largest producing 
     nation and have very low tariffs on cattle and large volumes 
     of beef that enter duty free under a TRQ system) and is 
     characterized by little government support and science-based 
     sanitary and phytosanitary measures, this is not true of most 
     of the rest of the world. Our trading partners often employ 
     (1) high tariffs, (2) massive subsidies (for some), (3) 
     unscientific SPS measures, (4) misuse of state trading 
     enterprises in grains to artificially lower costs of 
     production in certain major exporting nations and (5) failure 
     to open markets even where FTAs have been negotiated through 
     the exclusion of large segments of agricultural trade 
     (including cattle and beef) in violation of WTO obligations 
     and requirements. Such actions ensure that many markets are 
     closed, US exports are limited and global export prices and 
     prices in the U.S. are lower than they would be in an 
     environment of harmonized tariff levels, elimination of 
     export and domestic subsidies and harmonized SPS standards.
       While the European Union is the worst offender with 
     combination tariffs well north of 100% ad valorem, more than 
     $9.5 billion in subsidies to the sector and SPS measures that 
     have been found inconsistent with WTO obligations, they are 
     not alone. The U.S. government has estimated that bound 
     tariffs in the sector by our trading partners average 85%. 
     Subsidies are provided to expand exports and build up 
     industries in major producing nations, such as Australia, 
     Brazil, Canada as well as the EU. Two major trading partners, 
     Australia and Canada, have state-trading enterprises for 
     grains which are believed to distort prices for major inputs 
     to domestic cattle production in those countries. Indeed, the 
     Australian Wheat Board has acknowledged publicly that they do 
     so. Fifty-eight countries closed their markets in whole or in 
     part to U.S. exports after a single imported cow from Canada 
     was found in Washington state to have BSE and have maintained 
     restrictions without risk assessments to justify such action 
     and contrary to the international standards established by 
     the OIE. The result is artificially high prices in major 
     consuming markets like Europe and Japan (in 2002 the average 
     slaughter steer price in the EU was $127.42/cwt and in Japan 
     Holstein steers sold at $171.57/cwt while U.S. steer prices 
     never went above $75/cwt in any month of the year) and 
     artificially low prices in open markets like the United 
     States. U.S. producers who are blessed with abundant land and 
     are highly educated and entrepreneurial are being destroyed 
     not because they are not competitive but because the global 
     market place is stacked against them.
       While tariffs and subsidies are being negotiated as part of 
     the ongoing WTO Doha Development Round, it is critical that 
     the United States obtain parity for U.S. producers with both 
     developed and developing countries on these critical issues 
     through the negotiations. Based on discussions to date, such 
     parity is unlikely without a sectoral approach being adopted 
     for cattle and beef within the Doha Round.
       Similarly, it is critical that other distortions be 
     eliminated through harmonization of SPS standards actually 
     applied by major consuming nations, that state trading 
     enterprises be eliminated (or forced to end their distortive 
     practices) and that countries not be allowed to maintain FTAs 
     where in fact substantially all trade is not covered.
       Without such comprehensive actions, current efforts to 
     negotiate FTAs with many countries including most of the 
     major producing nations--but few of the major consuming 
     nations--has the potential perverse consequence of worsening 
     the position of U.S. cattle producers and the rural 
     communities which depend on them by further opening the U.S. 
     market without ensuring that U.S. producers (and other 
     producers) can compete in a non-distorted manner globally.
       Finally, Congress has recognized that perishable products 
     like live cattle and beef need special rules included in 
     trade agreements to facilitate trade and provide the tools 
     necessary to address pricing or volume problems quickly when 
     they occur. The U.S.-Australia FTA includes such a provision 
     for beef. It is critical that every trade agreement (whether 
     bilateral, plurilateral or multilateral) have such special 
     rules and that they be applicable to cattle and beef and be 
     automatic in operation.


                         II. GLOBAL DISTORTIONS

     A. Tariffs
       The United States allows various categories of beef to be 
     imported duty-free pursuant to free trade agreements (ex. 
     Mexico and Canada under NAFTA) and preferential treatment 
     programs (ex. Peru under Andean Trade Preference Act). Beef 
     from all other countries is subject to a Tariff Rate Quota 
     system and imports within the TRQ (covering 696,621 MT) are 
     subject to a tariff that is nearly zero. Import volume that 
     falls outside the TRQ is subject to a 26.4% duty. In 
     contrast, major consuming and several producing nations 
     maintain high tariffs and/or highly restrictive tariff-rate 
     quotas (TRQs) to limit market access, which limits both 
     export opportunities for U.S. producers, and leads to other 
     producing nations focusing on the same open beef markets like 
     the United States resulting in lower prices in the United 
     States than would otherwise be the case.

[[Page 15718]]



                                                        COMPARISON 2003 EFFECTIVE TARIFFS ON BEEF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   U.S.
      Code                Description           effective              Japan                China       Jamaica       Korea        EU\1\        Turkey
                                                   rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
020130..........  Meat of bovine animals,            .274%  50% (safeguard) (normally            34%          40%        40.5%        79.5%       227.5%
                   fresh or chilled: Boneless.               38.5% of CIF).
020230..........  Meat of bovine animals,            2.15%  50% (safeguard) (normally            34%          40%        40.5%     \2\93.1%       227.5%
                   frozen: Boneless.                         38.5% of CIF).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\EU effective rate based on 2002 data.
\2\Based on tariff rates for 0202.30.10 and 0202.30.50.

     B. Subsidies
       Major beef producing nations have lavished billions of 
     dollars in aid to support and expand beef productions in 
     their respective countries. For example, the EU is largest 
     agricultural subsidizer in the world, projected to spend over 
     $9.5 billion for both export and domestic subsidies on their 
     beef and cattle sectors in 2005. Likewise, Brazil has spent 
     hundreds of millions of dollars to expand their beef sector 
     through both domestic and export subsidies and is understood 
     to be more than doubling the amount of subsidies to the 
     sector in 2004 to roughly a half billion dollars. Further, 
     both Australia and Canada are engaged in providing hundreds 
     of millions of dollars in support to their respective cattle 
     and beef sectors in an effort to artificially prop up those 
     industries:

        Country                                   Est. Subsidy per Head
EU...............................................................$87.94
Canada.............................................................6.12
Brazil.............................................................5.38
Australia..........................................................2.96

       Conversely, outside of disaster assistance or drought 
     relief, the cattle and beef producer in the United States 
     receives no support from the government.
     C. State Trading Enterprises
       State Trading Enterprises maintained in Australia and 
     Canada operate to distort internal prices for key feedstuffs 
     through the use of wheat boards supporting larger herds than 
     would otherwise be the case. The Australian Wheat Board 
     Director has stated that: ``By controlling the export of 
     grains used as feeds--wheat, barley, and sorghum--these 
     entities are able to influence the domestic prices of feed, 
     and thus benefit Australian cattle producers.''
     D. Unjustified Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
       Many of the major consuming countries have imposed 
     restraints on U.S. exports of cattle and beef that are not 
     based on risk assessments or otherwise comply with WTO SPS 
     obligations. While all governments accept the fact that some 
     trade restrictions may be necessary to ensure food safety and 
     animal and plant health protection, the use of sanitary and 
     phytosanitary restrictions to shield domestic producers from 
     competition is unacceptable. For many years, the EU has 
     unjustifiably banned U.S. exports of beef on the grounds of 
     hormones despite adverse WTO panel and Appellate Body 
     reports. Beginning in December of last year U.S. beef has 
     been banned in fifty-eight markets around the world on the 
     basis of BSE without adequate scientific justification or WTO 
     notification. Such restrictive actions have largely 
     eliminated in 2004 the export markets for U.S. beef, markets 
     that have been built up over many years of business.
       Global BSE Trade Ban in place as of Feb. 1, 2004 
     (apartially removed as of June 11, 2004; 
     bcountry joined EU and ban lifted; 
     cbanned applies to Washington State only):
       1. Argentina; 2. Australia; 3. Bahrain; 4. Barbados; 5. 
     Belize; 6. Bolivia; 7. Brazil; 8. Brunei; 9. Bulgaria; 10. 
     Canadaa.
       11. Cayman Islands; 12. Chile; 13. China; 14. Colombia; 15. 
     Costa Ricaa; 16. Dominican Republica; 
     17. Ecuador; 18. Egypt; 19. El Salvador; 20. Grenada.
       21. Guatemalaa; 22. Honduras; 23. Hong Kong; 24. 
     Indonesiaa; 25. Israel; 26. Jamaica; 27. Japan; 
     28. Jordan; 29. Kenya; 30. Korea.
       31. Kuwait; 32. Latviab; 33. Macau; 34. 
     Malaysia; 35. Mexicoa; 36. Nicaraguaa; 
     37. Oman; 38. Panama; 39. Peru; 40. Philippinesa.
       41. Polandb; 42. Qatar; 43. Republic of South 
     Africa; 44. St. Kitts; 45. St. Vincent & Grenadines; 46. 
     Saudi Arabiac; 47. Russia; 48. Singapore; 49. 
     Surinam; 50. Taiwan.
       51. Thailand; 52. Trinidad & Tobagoa; 53. 
     Turkey; 54. Ukraine; 55. United Arab Emirates; 56. Uruguay; 
     57. Venezuela; 58. Vietnam.


 III. WTO INCONSISTENT FTAs RESULT IN LARGE VOLUMES OF BEEF COMING TO 
           THE UNITED STATES THAN WOULD OTHERWISE BE THE CASE

       Many countries have entered into free trade agreements 
     (FTAs) where large portions of agricultural trade, including 
     trade in cattle and beef, have been excluded from tariff 
     concessions. Such actions raise serious questions about FTA 
     compliance with obligations of GATT Article XXIV:8(b), which 
     requires that FTAs eliminate duties and other restrictions on 
     ``substantially all'' of the trade between parties to the 
     FTA. Correct implementation of Article XXIV in the FTAs would 
     result in expanded market opportunities for FTA partners and 
     provides alternative markets to traditional export markets 
     such as the U.S. Lack of alternative markets funnels product 
     into the U.S. lowering prices here as well as into other 
     markets not covered by FTAs. An examination of five of the 
     EC's FTAs, as an example, shows the following product 
     exclusions:

                     PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTS EXCLUDED FROM TARIFF CONCESSIONS IN FIVE EC-FTAs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            HS 0201
                                                                            Meat of      HS 0202     Total % of
                                                               HS 0102       bovine      Meat of    agricultural
                          Country                            Live bovine    animals,      bovine      products
                                                               animals      fresh or     animals,     excluded
                                                                            chilled       frozen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico.....................................................          100          100          100            35
South Africa...............................................          100          100          100            25
Tunisia....................................................          100          100          100            68
Morocco....................................................          100          100          100            67
Israel.....................................................          100          100          100            87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  IV. SPECIAL RULES FOR PERISHABLE AND CYCLICAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

       In 2002 Congress recognized that producers of perishable, 
     seasonal, and cyclical agricultural products, like cattle and 
     beef, face unique challenges in the market. Some proposals 
     have been made by the U.S. in the Doha Round in the Rules 
     area but to date nothing has been put forward in the 
     agriculture negotiations. In the United States-Australia Free 
     Trade Agreement (FTA) this requirement was recognized by the 
     Administration as it negotiated an agricultural safeguard for 
     beef. While the terms within the U.S.-Australia FTA are 
     discretionary and limited to beef, it is an important 
     precedent for the type of automatic provisions that should be 
     part of every FTA and part of the WTO.


 V. THE HIGHLY DESTRUCTIVE EFFECT OF GLOBAL MARKET DISTORTIONS ON THE 
                      U.S. CATTLE AND BEEF SECTOR

       Cattle and beef production comprises the single largest 
     sector of U.S. agriculture. Cattle are raised in all fifty 
     states and half of all U.S. farms have beef cattle as part of 
     their operations.
       Because cattle prices for U.S. producers are highly 
     sensitive to demand movements, the combination of an open 
     U.S. market, coupled with the global distortions outlined 
     above, has resulted in massive dislocations to U.S. producers 
     and the rural communities which depend on them in the last 
     fifteen years.

                             BEEF CATTLE OPERATIONS, LOSSES AND 2002 CATTLE RECEIPTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            No. of operations                      2002 Cash
                                                      -----------------------------  Declines       Receipts
                                                                                      (% of   ------------------
                                                         1993     2002    Declines    1993)     (000s $s)   Rank
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL...................................................    32000    24000       8000       25.0   2,378,278     14
AK...................................................       90       90          0        0.0      27,906     49
AZ...................................................     2600     2100        500       19.2   1,094,056     29
AR...................................................    27000    27000          0        0.0   2,951,745     10
CA...................................................    15000    12500       2500       16.7   6,241,632      2
CO...................................................    10500    10900          0        0.0   3,501,589      9
CT...................................................      800      800          0        0.0     154,364     45
DE...................................................      230      230          0        0.0     546,329     39
FL...................................................    18000    16500       1500        8.3   1,239,225     28
GA...................................................    23000    21000       2000        8.7   2,889,736     12
HI...................................................      800      650        150       18.8      84,789     46
ID...................................................     7500     7600          0        0.0   1,998,531     17
IL...................................................    21000    15800       5200       24.8   1,562,297     22
IN...................................................    17000    12000       5000       29.4   1,551,019     23
IA...................................................    29000    26000       3000       10.3   5,074,754      5
KS...................................................    29000    28000       1000        3.4   5,325,329      4
KY...................................................    44000    40000       4000        9.1   1,960,679     18
LA...................................................    18000    13000       5000       27.8     614,049     38
ME...................................................     1400     1000        400       28.6     230,471     42
MD...................................................     3800     2700       1100       28.9     810,343     32
MA...................................................     1000      750        250       25.0      83,250     47
MI...................................................     8000     8000          0        0.0   1,259,700     27
MN...................................................    16000    15500        500        3.1   3,644,854      8
MS...................................................    27000    20000       7000       25.9   1,949,698     19
MO...................................................    62000    58000       4000        6.5   2,302,053     15
MT...................................................    11800    11400        400        3.4     985,498     30
NE...................................................    23000    21000       2000        8.7   5,824,295      3
NV...................................................     1400     1300        100        7.1     211,157     43
NH...................................................      500      530          0        0.0      56,276     48
NJ...................................................     1200      700        500       41.7     192,609     44
NM...................................................     7000     6500        500        7.1   1,382,052     26
NY...................................................     7500     6200       1300       17.3   1,870,160     20
NC...................................................    26000    21000       5000       19.2   3,944,013      6
ND...................................................    13200    11500       1700       12.9     723,656     37
OH...................................................    19000    17000       2000       10.5   1,630,227     21
OK...................................................    51000    50000       1000        2.0   2,893,460     11
OR...................................................    16000    12800       3200       20.0     808,131     33
PA...................................................    12500    12200        300        2.4   2,682,401     13
RI...................................................      160      160          0        0.0       6,300     50
SC...................................................    13000     9500       3500       26.9     760,227     35
SD...................................................    18000    16500       1500        8.3   2,059,513     16
TN...................................................    55000    45000      10000       18.2     913,073     31
TX...................................................   130000   133000          0        0.0   8,087,670      1
UT...................................................     5000     5600          0        0.0     807,752     34
VT...................................................     1100     1200          0        0.0     400,174     40
VA...................................................    24000    23000       1000        4.2   1,451,127     25
WA...................................................    14000     9700       4300       30.7   1,495,317     24
WV...................................................    15000    11000       4000       26.7     300,197     41
WI...................................................     9800    12000          0        0.0   3,768,302      7
WY...................................................     5100     5200          0        0.0     749,571     36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Operations are for Beef Cattle & Calves, from USDA NASS, ``Cattle Final Estimates'' 1994-98 & 1998-2002.
  Cash receipts are for Livestock and products from USDA ERS.

       For example, in a global market where there was a level 
     playing field for U.S. cattle producers, the U.S. would have 
     a huge and growing trade surplus as there are only a handful 
     of countries with the capacity to supply large quantities of 
     quality beef for export. Yet, prior to the BSE outbreak in 
     Canada in 2003, the U.S. has been running a trade deficit in 
     cattle and beef:

[[Page 15719]]



                              UNITED STATES BEEF AND CATTLE TRADE FLOWS, 1999-2003
                                                    [$1,000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   1999     2000      2001       2002      2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle Imports.................................................    1,007    1,157      1,464      1,448      867
Cattle Exports.................................................      174      272        270        131       64
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
      Total, Cattle............................................     -833     -886     -1,194     -1,317     -803
                                                                ================================================
Beef, Imports..................................................    1,904    2,205      2,514      2,513    2,364
Beef, Exports..................................................    2,655    2,909      2,548      2,489    3,036
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
      Total, Beef..............................................      751      704         34        -24      672
                                                                ================================================
      Total, Cattle & Beef Trade...............................      -82     -182     -1,160     -1,341    -130
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Source: Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics, HS 0102 (cattle), 0201 (fresh
  beef), and 0202 (frozen beef).

       Limited U.S. exports, significant inflows of imports and 
     massive global distortions have led to long-term 
     unsustainable pricing and an unprecedented seven year decline 
     in cattle inventory in the United States. For example, during 
     the 1992-2001 decade USDA reports that financial returns for 
     cow/calf producers were a negative $30.40 per bred cow per 
     year, losses aggregating to the billions of dollars. With the 
     massive losses, cattle herds have declined.
       While the partial closure of the Canadian border in 2003 
     because of the BSE outbreak in that country has provided a 
     temporary respite for US producers in terms of pricing 
     levels, only correction of the global distortions can restore 
     pricing equilibrium.
       The unsustainable prices over the last fifteen years have 
     resulted in ranching families going bankrupt by the thousands 
     and being forced off of their land. In 1993, there were 
     nearly 900,000 beef operations in the United States. By 2003, 
     this number declined to 792,100 operations. In the late 
     1990s, auctions of equipment from ranches and farms were a 
     weekly event across rural America as families lost everything 
     they owned and saw the end of what was often generations-old 
     family businesses.
       The depressed pricing in the marketplace over most of the 
     last fifteen years has meant a hollowing out of the ranching 
     communities across American and with it the destruction of 
     many of the rural communities dependent on ranch and farm 
     economic health for survival.


              vi. action to reform distortions is critical

       Eliminating the global distortions in cattle and beef trade 
     is important to every state in the United States, to 
     thousands of rural communities and to some eight hundred 
     thousand ranching and farming families that raise cattle in 
     America. Some distortions can be addressed through the WTO 
     Doha Negotiations but only if the level of ambition at least 
     for cattle and beef is substantially higher than appears to 
     be the direction of negotiations in mid-June 2004.
       What is needed from the ongoing WTO Doha Development Round:
       (a) elimination of all export subsidies (developed and 
     developing countries);
       (b) elimination of all domestic subsidies (developed and 
     developing countries);
       (c) harmonization of tariffs at a level comparable to that 
     existing in the U.S. for all major consuming and all major 
     producing nations; and
       (d) maintenance of special safeguards on beef and/or the 
     negotiation of special rules for perishable and cyclical 
     agricultural products.
       In addition, the U.S. must obtain through negotiation, 
     dispute resolution or otherwise:
       (a) a harmonization of SPS measures as applied to cattle 
     and beef from all major consuming and producing nations;
       (b) expansion of trading partners' FTAs to cover 
     substantially all trade in fact, including cattle and beef 
     where not presently covered; and
       (c) elimination of state trading enterprises involved in 
     grains, cattle or beef to ensure products are traded 
     according to market principles without distortions.
       Finally, it is critical that the United States include in 
     any future FTAs special rules for perishable and cyclical 
     agricultural products applicable to both cattle and beef that 
     are automatic and both price and volume triggered.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this position paper has been prepared by 
R-CALF USA, an industry association representing ranchers across the 
country including Montana.
  Future trade agreements must seek to eliminate the distortions that 
undermine the prosperity of U.S. producers. That means the U.S. should 
negotiate agreements that offer real and substantial opportunities. 
That also means the U.S. must take a hard-nosed approach in the Doha 
Round of WTO negotiations.
  This matter is crucial to the future of rural America. It is worth 
every ounce of effort we can pour into it, and I--for one--pledge to 
press this fight.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to make several important points 
regarding the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
  As chairman of the Intelligence Committee and member of the Armed 
Services Committee, I am well aware of the valuable friendship that our 
two countries share. Australia's commitment to the fight in the Global 
War on Terror is unwavering. Australia's support in liberating and 
rebuilding Iraq has been crucial there.
  This agreement provides better opportunities for Kansas 
manufacturers, especially those in the aviation and transportation 
sectors to increase exports to the Australians. I understand that there 
is strong, bipartisan, interregional support for this agreement across 
industries and across the country.
  However, I feel compelled to share with my colleagues several things 
which trouble Kansas about the way this agreement was constructed.
  I must tell our colleagues that in all the years I have had the 
privilege to serve Kansas and agriculture in the U.S. Senate and the 
House of Representatives, there have been few, if any, times when there 
was as much open hostility to trade as I sense in some areas today.
  In Dodge City terms, ``The bloom is off the lily, and the lily was 
run over by a lawn mower.''
  I have had more than one producer ask me just what we are doing being 
involved in all these trade agreements when it seems that agriculture 
is under attack.
  We have dealt with and continue to deal with the BSE hurdles for our 
beef products, our farm and export programs are under attack through 
the Brazilian cotton case and our food aid programs are being attacked 
by others in the Doha round of WTO negotiations.
  We have now completed, and this body is considering a free trade 
agreement with Australia that exempts a single commodity--sugar--at the 
expense of others, particularly wheat and beef.
  Kansas producers, who do pay close attention to trade matters, are 
taking a look at this list of issues and saying: Hold on a minute, Pat. 
What is going on here?
  I will share with you and the rest of our colleagues what I tell the 
folks at the coffee klatch in Dodge.
  In addition to setting a dangerous precedent for future trade 
agreements, exempting sugar from the Australian FTA also sets a 
dangerous precedence for agriculture, especially for sugar itself. In 
the past, whether in trade agreements or trade disputes, whether it be 
in farm bills or budget reconciliations, the commodity and producer 
groups have sank or swam together.
  Sugar's insistence on not participating in this free trade agreement 
makes it very likely that the rest of US agriculture will opt not to 
participate in sugar's defense the next time that program faces a WTO 
challenge, budget reconciliation measure, or amendment to end sugar's 
support program during the next farm bill.
  Simply put, if sugar falls or jumps off the ag-boat in the future, it 
may very well find itself treading water while watching the rest of US 
agriculture drift away silently. Our producers will insist that we 
extract real concessions on state-traded enterprises, quotas, tariffs, 
etc. in future trade negotiations for their support for concessions on 
imports of agricultural goods here at home.
  Simply put, you don't bring a knife to a gun-fight and expect our 
producers to stand with you.
  I intend to support the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement. 
I believe that it is in the best interest of our relationship with our 
friend and ally, Australia. However, singling out individual 
commodities in future trade agreements is not in the best interest of 
our Nation and threatens agriculture's support and, therefore, my 
support for future trade agreements.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I placed in the Record a statement 
addressing the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement when the 
Finance Committee first passed it. Today, I want to offer some 
additional thoughts on two issues that have arisen since then.
  As I have said, I believe the agreement will promote our economic 
interests and job creation here in America.

[[Page 15720]]

In addition, Australia is an important ally, and we must do all we can 
to ensure a healthy and vibrant relationship between our two nations. 
Overall, the agreement deserves our support.
  However, I am disappointed that the administration has included 
provisions relating to pharmaceuticals in this agreement. It has been 
suggested that these provisions might block proposals to reimport drugs 
or undermine our Medicare and Medicaid programs. These provisions do 
not belong in this agreement and should not be considered as precedent 
for future agreements. The record should reflect that the U.S. Trade 
Representative has confirmed to the Congress that these provisions will 
not harm our domestic health programs or efforts to reimport drugs. And 
if the Trade Representative's claims in this matter should turn out to 
be wrong, I believe that a future administration and the Congress 
should act immediately to correct the agreement through whatever 
process is needed.
  Second, I am disappointed that the Bush administration did not do 
more to ensure a level playing field for our important beef and dairy 
farmers. Further, the administration ignored the will of the Senate 
Finance Committee on this important issue. I was happy to support an 
amendment in the Finance Committee that helps ensure a level playing 
field for our domestic beef farmers. Unfortunately, the administration 
ignored this action and failed to include those enhanced protections in 
its final proposal. It would seem the administration is content with 
listening only to itself and a few select industries as it negotiates 
trade pacts for all of America. This is not consistent with our 
expectations under fast-track procedures.
  Finally, as I have stated before, I am disappointed that the Bush 
administration did not build on the model of the United States-Jordan 
agreement by including strong and enforceable labor standards in the 
core of the agreement. Although Australia already has very strong labor 
rights and an effective enforcement regime, the agreement represents a 
missed opportunity to set a higher benchmark for future trade 
agreements by cementing the principle that labor and environmental 
standards are in the core of all new agreements.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Australia Free 
Trade Agreement. On balance, this agreement is overwhelmingly 
beneficial to the State of Maine, and to the country as a whole. 
Critical to my decision to support this agreement is the fact that it 
will provide new and expanded opportunities to Maine businesses that 
want to expand into the Australian market. This agreement will create 
and support good jobs in my State.
  It is clear that businesses across Maine are interested in initiating 
or expanding trade with Australia. The Maine International Trade Center 
held a seminar recently on export market opportunities in Australia. 
Representatives from more than fifty Maine companies, including many 
small businesses and manufacturers, attended.
  It is no wonder: the United States has a trade surplus with Australia 
of $9.1 billion, the second largest trade surplus of any U.S. trading 
partner. Australia is a net consumer of United States exports and 
particularly United States manufactured goods. Ninety-three percent of 
United States exports to Australia are manufactured goods, and 99 
percent of these goods will be duty-free if the agreement is 
implemented. The National Association of Manufacturers predicts that 
the agreement could result in nearly $2 billion per year in new United 
States exports of manufactured goods to Australia, a boost to our hard-
pressed manufacturers.
  In addition, Australia is the 15th largest economy in the world and 
has been growing over the past few years while the rest of the world is 
in recession. This means more Australian buying power--and many new 
opportunities for Maine and United States companies to export their 
products to Australia.
  Australia has a strong and vibrant trading relationship with Maine. 
Australia is Maine's 12th largest export market, and in 2003, Maine 
exported nearly $29 million in high-value goods, such as electrical 
equipment, computers, and paper products, to the country. The agreement 
will make these goods 99.25 percent duty free, on average, in the 
Australian market.
  Maine's forest and paper products industry will be stronger and will 
be able to grow as a result of this agreement. The agreement lifts all 
Australian tariffs on all U.S. forest products, which currently face 
tariffs up to 5 percent. This is important, because the United States 
is Australia's second largest supplier of paper and paperboard, with 
exports totaling $178 million in paper products in 2003.
  Expanded access to the Australian market will directly benefit Maine 
mills. For example, International Paper's mill in Jay ME, exports about 
1,200 tons of paper to Australia every year. These exports currently 
face a 5 percent tariff. If the free trade agreement is implemented, 
the tariff will be eliminated, and International Paper will be able to 
fulfill its plans to increase the amount of paper it exports to 
Australia from Maine, preserving and even increasing the number of jobs 
supported by the mill.
  The agreement will benefit other Maine companies as well. The 
elimination of tariffs will enable FMC Coporation's Rockland plant to 
significantly expand its export of carrageenan products to Australia. 
In Southern Maine, National Semiconductor and Fairchild Semiconductor 
will benefit from the agreement's elimination of tariffs on all U.S. 
high-tech manufactured goods and from expanded opportunities for U.S. 
suppliers to compete for a broad range of Australian government 
contracts.
  The Maine Potato Board has endorsed the agreement because it will 
open and expand Australian markets for Maine potato products. The MPB 
notes that the long-term success of the Maine potato industry is 
absolutely dependent on the growth of new markets.
  Despite the overwhelming benefits of this pact, I do have some 
concerns with this agreement. While Maine does stand to reap 
substantial benefits, I am disappointed that the United States Trade 
Representative has included language that conflicts with the goal of 
drug reimportation.
  One of the greatest challenges facing American consumers is the high 
cost of prescription drugs. That is why I have long supported 
legislation to allow Americans to benefit from international price 
competition on prescription drugs by permitting FDA-approved medicines 
made in FDA-approved facilities to be imported into this country.
  Despite the ongoing debate in Congress and the strong support for 
drug reimportation on the part of the American public, I am 
disappointed that our trade representatives have insisted on including 
language in this trade agreement that is contrary to these critically 
important efforts.
  The Australian government already bans the export of drugs subsidized 
under the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Since 90 percent 
of the drugs prescribed in Australia are subsidized, Australia would 
not be a significant source of supply of imported drugs into the United 
States, with or without this agreement. Drugs imported into the United 
States are far more likely to come from Canada and Western Europe.
  I am concerned, however, that these provisions set a bad precedent. 
While Australia itself is not necessarily a good source for imported 
drugs, this language could become a template for future agreements.
  I am also disappointed that this agreement provided some additional 
market access for Australian dairy products in the U.S. market. 
However, I am pleased the final version of the agreement includes 
marked improvements over initial drafts. For example, the agreement 
gradually phases in limited increases in dairy imports over an 18-year 
period. In addition, the agreement maintains the current U.S. above-
quota tariffs on dairy products indefinitely. These improvements were 
included in the agreement after I joined with my colleagues in sending 
a letter to U.S. Trade Representative

[[Page 15721]]

Robert Zoellick asking that the interests of our dairy farmers be taken 
into account as the agreement was negotiated. The inclusion of these 
provisions, in addition to my consultations with Maine's agricultural 
leaders, has led me to conclude that this agreement will not have a 
significant impact on Maine's dairy industry. Moreover, Australia 
currently exports only a small amount of MPCs to the United States, and 
this agreement will not change this.
  Australia is one of our oldest and most reliable partners. The 
country is a growing market for high-value U.S. exports from both Maine 
and the country. The free trade agreement we are considering today will 
strengthen the economic and diplomatic ties between our countries. On 
balance, it is good for Maine, and for both countries.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the 
Australia Free Trade Agreement. Because I believe this agreement offers 
greater access to Australian markets for U.S. manufacturers as well 
help solidify a long-term relationship with Australia, a leading ally 
of the United States on a whole host of international challenges, I 
will vote in support of this agreement.
  The Australia Free Trade Agreement will offer new opportunities for 
U.S. manufacturers as well as granting substantial access to U.S. 
services suppliers, including telecoms, financial services, express 
delivery, and professional services providers. These sectors are a 
critical part of New York's economy. Furthermore, Australia has been a 
stalwart ally of the U.S. and this agreement is another step in 
cementing that relationship.
  I share the concerns raised by some of my colleagues regarding the 
drug importation language in the agreement. Quite simply, the United 
States Trade Representative should not be negotiating agreements that 
could impact on the drug importation debate and I have grave concerns 
about the inclusion of this language in the agreement. Similarly, in 
the Chile and Singapore agreements, I raised concerns about the 
inclusion of immigration provisions in those agreements. The continuing 
practice of the United States Trade Representative of including 
provisions in trade agreements which are rightfully in the jurisdiction 
of Congress is deeply troubling.
  During my tenure as a Senator, I have voted for every trade agreement 
that has come before the Senate. However, I will find it difficult to 
support future trade agreements which contain language that impedes the 
jurisdiction of Congress regarding drug importation or other issues.
  While I wish the agreement had included provisions that provided 
greater market access for New York agriculture, I believe that a 
genuine effort was made to address the legitimate concerns of New York 
and other States' farmers and that, on balance, New York's economy will 
benefit from this agreement.
  Despite my concerns over the drug importation provisions, I believe 
that, in the aggregate, New York will benefit more from having this 
agreement pass than if it failed. I also believe it sends a positive 
signal to Australia about the importance of the United States-Australia 
relationship. The Trade Representative should not make the mistake of 
concluding that a vote for the Australia Free Trade Agreement is a vote 
in support of this troubling drug importation provision.
  When deciding how to vote on trade agreements, I look at each 
agreement in its totality and measure the impact of each agreement on 
the New Yorkers that I am privileged to represent. Because I believe 
that passage of the Australia Free Trade agreement will lead to more 
jobs and greater economic growth in industries that are an important 
part of New York's economy as well as strengthening the U.S. 
relationship with Australia, I will vote in support of this agreement.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, article 17.9.4 of the United States-
Australia Free Trade Agreement implementing legislation allowing patent 
holders to prevent the import of their patented products is redundant 
and should not have been included in the agreement. Australian law 
already bans the export of pharmaceuticals if such drugs are purchased 
under its Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, PBS, and PBS drugs account 
for over 90 percent of all drugs sold in Australia.
  This language does not establish a precedent for other free trade 
agreements. According to the Senate Finance Committee, it is 
appropriate to raise objections if this language is included in a free 
trade agreement negotiated with a country that does not forbid the 
export of low cost pharmaceuticals. Therefore, I will support this 
agreement.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I firmly believe that free and fair 
economic relations between nations will accrue to the benefit of all 
parties. Our country was founded on the principle that all States would 
benefit from the free flow of commerce between equal parties. And our 
national economy has proved this to be true.
  These same dynamics now operate on a global scale. Commerce can now 
reach around the globe with ease. Communications are instantaneous, 
even in the most isolated places. Our trading laws must keep pace with 
the emerging patterns. We must move to shape the emerging global 
marketplace into a productive and fair system--not sit back and condemn 
its advances and decry the loss of old economic structures. We can 
either be in the lead of this evolution, or we will be sidelined by it. 
I believe that America can and must exert leadership. One way we must 
assert leadership is by the negotiation of trade agreements that will 
lower the barriers to trade and level the playing fields for all 
players.
  Trade agreements come together more naturally with developed nations 
that share our commitment to rule of law, strong worker protections and 
strict environmental controls. Australia is such a country. Even so, it 
has been difficult to resolve the differences in our two economies and 
allow protections for particularly vulnerable elements of each economy. 
Negotiations have taken place over a considerable length of time, and 
no side has gotten everything they want.
  The provisions in the agreement relating to dairy, for instance, are 
an example of not getting all that we would like. I joined a bipartisan 
group of 30 Senators in a letter to the chief US trade negotiator, 
Ambassador Robert Zoellick, expressing our concerns for our Nation's 
dairy farmers and requesting favorable treatment for this struggling 
national industry. Under this agreement, imports may amount to two-
tenths of 1 percent of U.S. dairy production. While I would have 
preferred no market penetration by Australian dairy imports, I am 
confident that our industry is strong enough to meet this competition. 
Additionally, this agreement will open up new markets for Vermont's 
dairy products. I am confident Vermont farmers will be able to take 
strong advantage of this opportunity.
  Some concerns have been raised about provisions relating to 
prescription drugs. Transparency provisions in this agreement related 
to Government procurement decisions are designed to provide equal 
rights of appeal. The US Trade Representative, USTR, has indicated that 
these provisions will not require any changes in U.S. pharmaceutical 
purchasing programs. There has also been discussion about a provision 
in this agreement related to drug reimportation. As a strong supporter 
of passing drug reimportation legislation, I would not want to endorse 
any curtailment of future drug reimportation opportunities. In this 
case, however, Australian law prohibits the export of any drugs 
purchased through its government-subsidized program, the majority of 
all drugs sold in Australia. As a central part of the Australian 
Government's drug program, there is no reason to think that this 
prohibition would change. But I also warn USTR that it would be 
unacceptable to include language similar to article 17.9.4 in future 
trade agreements where reimportation might be an option in the event of 
a change in U.S. law. I am sure that the intense discussions around 
these provisions over the last few days have made this point quite 
clearly.

[[Page 15722]]

  As with all significant agreements, we will find flaws and challenges 
with this agreement as it unfolds. But as international dispute 
mechanisms are perfected, we become better at settling them equitably 
and expeditiously. The future of our economy and the health of the 
global economy are dependent upon us improving our ability to devise 
more equitable and open trading systems.
  The disparities between the economies of the developed world and the 
less-developed world continue to grow. This agreement comes between 
economies of equal strength, even though not of equal size. The 
experience we gain here in how to remove barriers to trade while 
protecting vital interests will inform us of how to more successfully 
tackle the difficult trade relations between our economy and those 
less-stable economies. Some would argue that the easiest way to relate 
to weaker economies is to put up greater barriers to trade--to prevent 
the export of any U.S. capital and prevent the entrance of any lower-
priced goods into our market. I am more of an optimist than that. I 
believe that we can do better than lock out whole sectors of the global 
economy. I believe we must make efforts, learn from our mistakes, and 
move ahead to strengthen the flow of commerce, the equity of business 
and the opportunity for all people to earn a living.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join many of my colleagues in 
supporting this landmark United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement, 
FTA. I say ``landmark'' because it is both historic in that it 
underscores the invaluable relationship between the United States and 
Australia--a relationship that is built on friendship, loyalty, and 
mutual support for economic and political freedoms--but also because it 
breaks new ground for an FTA.
  For the first time, a free trade agreement negotiated by the United 
States has addressed the worldwide problem of prescription drug price 
controls. The United States is virtually the only developed nation that 
does not regulate pharmaceutical prices. American consumers, who 
finance the bulk of research and development for the entire world, 
should be very pleased that the U.S. Government has begun broaching the 
subject with other developed countries. Because some of my colleagues 
have raised concerns about the pharmaceutical section, I want to 
briefly review what the FTA does, and what it does not do, in the area 
of pharmaceuticals.
  First, it is important to note that Americans will only benefit from 
the drug provisions and, in truth, so will Australians. The FTA makes 
suitable progress on addressing Australia's drug price controls; the 
U.S. did not have to make any concessions in exchange. I say suitable 
progress because, while the agreement makes important progress, 
Australia does not embrace a free market for drug pricing with the 
accord.
  I joined a number of my colleagues on a Congressional delegation trip 
to Australia at the beginning of the year. During our meetings with 
Australian government officials we had the opportunity to debate the 
Australian drug pricing system. I believe the agreement we will approve 
today was possible, in part, because of those discussions.
  In the FTA, the U.S. and Australia state that they ``recognize'' the 
importance of innovative pharmaceuticals in delivering high-quality 
health care. Incorporated in this, both countries agree to set 
pharmaceutical prices based on the ``objectively demonstrated 
therapeutic significance of the pharmaceutical.'' In practice, the U.S. 
Government is already in compliance with this provision because our 
Government does not ``mandate'' prices; certain Government agencies may 
negotiate prices with drug companies, but by and large, we allow the 
free market, including negotiations between drug companies, and 
insurance companies, to determine prices. While Australia could not 
take the next step and price drugs accordingly or adopt market-pricing, 
this is still an important first step. If the U.S. can convince our 
friends and trading partners to agree that innovative pharmaceuticals 
benefit everyone and that R&D is both costly and necessary to our 
health, then we can begin arguing for better burden sharing of R&D 
costs.
  I want to talk for a moment about price controls and the effect they 
have on research and development. Some of my colleagues argue that the 
U.S. should adopt prescription drug price controls indirectly by 
importing price-controlled drugs from other countries as a means of 
reducing drug costs for American consumers. I believe this would be a 
terrible mistake for a number of reasons, one of which is the effect it 
would have on R&D. To date, the U.S. has seen private pharmaceutical 
research move to the U.S. from Europe specifically because of price 
controls. Companies are able to recoup their R&D costs in the U.S. 
market and are consequently more likely to develop their new, 
breakthrough pharmaceuticals in the U.S. Americans like having the R&D 
performed in our country--we like the quality jobs it brings and we 
like having first access to new products--but we do not like the fact 
that Americans pay for almost all of the R&D for the world. Americans 
know this is simply not fair. If the U.S. adopts price controls, we 
will see the development of new, innovative pharmaceuticals drop off 
because there will be no one left to fund R&D. Rather, we must begin 
persuading other developed, market economies to begin shouldering their 
share of the burden. That is why the fact that the agreement recognizes 
the importance of R&D is so critical.
  The FTA also commits Australia to make both transparency and 
timeliness improvements to their Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, PBS, 
that are intended to make the listing process for new pharmaceuticals 
more open and fair. The PBS is the system by which the Australian 
government sets price controls and provides subsidies for nearly all 
drugs sold in Australia. To improve transparency, Australia agrees to 
establish an independent review board to hear appeals of PBS listing 
decisions. This will enhance transparency and accountability in the 
operation of the PBS. Companies will gain a better idea of how and why 
decisions were made regarding their drug submissions. Prior to this 
agreement, U.S. drug companies would submit information on a new drug 
for listing by the PBS, the PBS would set the price, and the company 
would be left with a ``take it or leave it'' situation.
  Some of my colleagues have asked whether the U.S. will have to 
establish a similar independent review board, but the general counsel 
of the USTR clarified for the Senate Finance Committee, during the July 
14, 2004 consideration of the FTA, that because our processes are 
already open and transparent, no independent review board is required 
for any U.S. Government purchases of pharmaceuticals, by the Veterans' 
Administration, for example).
  Finally, the FTA establishes a ``medicines working group'' that will 
provide a forum for continued dialogue between the United States and 
Australia on pharmaceutical issues. During our meetings in Australia we 
suggested such a working group as a way to guarantee that, if our 
pricing concerns could not be resolved in the FTA, we could continue to 
discuss the issue. The subject matters that the group might consider 
are not limited by the agreement, and therefore can be expected to 
include the importance of market-based pricing.
  Now, to address the concerns of my colleagues. First, the FTA does 
not ban the importation of price-controlled drugs. As my colleagues 
know, it is already illegal for individuals to import prescription 
drugs into the United States. Now, Congress may vote to amend U.S. law 
to allow individuals to import prescription drugs from foreign 
countries. I would strongly oppose this, but we may do it. This 
agreement would in no way prohibit Congress from changing U.S. law to 
allow drug importation. The new U.S. law would supercede the agreement 
and would take effect despite any inconsistencies with the agreement. 
Also as some of my colleagues know, Australian law prohibits the export 
from Australia of drugs that are subsidized by the Australian 
government. This only makes

[[Page 15723]]

sense, from the perspective of Australian taxpayers. Australian law 
does allow nonsubsidized drugs to be exported; but in reality, most of 
the drugs marketed and sold in Australia are under the subsidized 
system. As a consequence, Australia is not likely to be a significant 
exporter of low-priced drugs to U.S. consumers, should Congress allow 
drug importation, regardless of what this FTA says.
  Another charge raised by some of my colleagues is that the patent 
protections in the FTA will in some way prohibit drug importation. The 
patent protections included in the FTA merely state that both nations 
agree to protect the patent owners' rights to determine how, by 
contract or other means, their patent is used by a licensed third 
party. It is not specific to pharmaceuticals, nor is it unique to this 
FTA; other U.S. trade agreements include similar language that merely 
reiterates and is consistent with existing U.S. patent laws. That is, 
under U.S. law patent holders already have the right through contracts 
and by other means to limit the use of their products. If an 
unscrupulous person wanted to steal a U.S. company's drug patent, 
illegally make the drug, and sell it into the United States, it would 
be a violation of U.S. law, regardless of whether the U.S. entered into 
this FTA or not.
  I urge all of my colleagues to review the facts if they have concerns 
with the drug provisions of this FTA because this agreement will not 
increase drug prices in the U.S., it will not increase drug prices in 
Australia, and it will not prevent the U.S. from changing our laws in 
any way. It will, however, begin an important dialogue with our 
Australian friends about the importance of R&D and of paying for R&D 
this is an important first step. I urge all of my colleagues to support 
the agreement.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I do not consider myself 
a protectionist, nor a free trader, but a balanced trader.
  Having said that, I have not been a supporter of so-called free trade 
agreements in the past. I have been very skeptical of the free trade 
agreements--FTAs--our country has signed due to the detrimental impact 
that I believe they've had on our economy, especially the manufacturing 
industry. Most of the trade agreements we have signed since I have been 
involved in politics under both Democrat and Republican leadership have 
put American workers at an unfair disadvantage because they have 
encouraged trade with countries that have no labor standards, lack 
environmental and intellectual property laws, and violate agreements 
under the WTO.
  Free trade only works when both countries play fairly. That is why I 
can support the U.S.-Australian Free Trade Agreement--USAFTA. Australia 
is a country that holds true to their word and will live up to their 
commitments in the agreement. Australia lives by the same rules of law 
that we as Americans live by. By maintaining an equivalent cost of 
production and standard of living to that of the United States, the 
USAFTA will improve the competitive advantages of both countries 
without encouraging the displacement of hard-working Americans.
  I am extremely concerned about the negative impacts that unfair trade 
agreements have had on the manufacturing industry. South Carolina, 
particularly the textile industry, has been decimated by unfair trade, 
first with NAFTA and now with the People's Republic of China. We have 
lost thousands of jobs at home. In the last six years, nearly 230,000 
U.S. textile jobs have been lost. Since 1997, the U.S. textile industry 
has closed more than 250 textile plants in the country. These mass 
layoffs and plant closings are a direct result of unfairly traded 
imports, especially from China. China's access to the U.S. textile and 
apparel market more than doubled in 2002, growing 117 percent and grew 
an additional 114 percent in 2003, according to the American Textile 
Manufacturers Institute.
  During the negotiations on the Australian Free Trade Agreement, the 
Bush Administration negotiated a good deal for the textile industry and 
I appreciate their efforts in this regard. The USAFTA contains a strict 
yarn-forward rule of origin with no loopholes, exceptions, or 
carveouts. Therefore, the benefits of the USAFTA are limited to the 
participating countries only, effectively denying China the loophole 
through which they annually transship billions of dollars of 
manufacturing goods into this country. This is the first FTA to contain 
such a strict yarn-forward rule of origin and I hope that it is the 
first of many.
  While I recognize the need to examine the problems with our current 
trade agreements, I support the USAFTA because I feel it has the 
opportunity to serve as a model for future FTAs. Furthermore, the 
implementation of the USAFTA will further strengthen the U.S. 
relationship with Australia, one of our most important and reliable 
strategic partners.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today we are considering the United States-
Australia Free Trade Agreement. There is a lot to commend in the 
agreement before us. This deal is expected to add over $490 million 
annually to the U.S. economy. The benefits of this agreement to the 
manufacturing sector of America are significant. Tariffs on nearly all 
U.S. exports of manufactured goods are immediately eliminated. 
Intellectual property rights protections will be expanded, as will 
progress towards enhanced trade through e-commerce. I commend 
Ambassador Zoellick for his hard work on this deal.
  I have been to Australia many times, and I have met with Prime 
Minister John Howard. The U.S. and Australia share many interests. We 
share similar values, similar standards of living, and similar goals. 
Australia is a close friend and important ally in the war on terror, 
and I recognize the value of our relationship. Because of the overall 
benefit to our economy and the close friendship the U.S. shares with 
Australia, I will be supporting this agreement today.
  However, I have some reservations about the impact of this deal on 
Montana farmers, and I want to take a moment to address those.
  While the beef industry has achieved a generally balanced phase-in of 
changes, the Australian Wheat Board remains a trade-distorting monopoly 
that could harm our domestic grain producers. I recognize that 
Australia has offered to reconsider the role of its Wheat Board in the 
context of the Doha negotiations, and I applaud that decision. But the 
Australia Free Trade Agreement provides no immediate benefit for 
Montana farmers.
  Provisions relating to cattle are somewhat better than those for 
grains, but I want to take a moment and address an issue of concern for 
some in the beef industry. The automatic safeguards provided for in 
this agreement are subject to waiver, and that is troubling for some of 
our producers. While the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has 
been clear that the waiver would be used only in extraordinary 
circumstances, I want to stress my belief that those safeguards are 
there for a reason. Should the Senate approve this agreement before us 
today, I expect USTR to use caution when considering waiving the 
safeguards. I appreciate the provisions in the implementing language 
that require USTR to consult with the Senate Finance Committee, the 
House Ways and Means Committee, and private sector advisory groups 
prior to taking action. Consultation requirements like these ensure 
that the best interests of our cattle producers will be protected. The 
inclusion of price and quantity safeguards represent real progress in 
achieving a balanced phase-in of free trade agreements, and I want to 
make sure they are properly used.
  Despite these issues, I do believe that the Australia agreement is, 
in general, beneficial to the United States, and to Montana. It could 
certainly be improved, but Australia comes closer to a balanced deal 
than most FTAs have.
  Again, I will vote for this agreement, but I call on Ambassador 
Zoellick to aggressively defend the interests of our agricultural 
sector in the Doha talks so that the future of free trade looks 
brighter for America's farmers and ranchers. Multi-lateral agreements, 
like the Doha talks, provide real opportunities for farmers and 
ranchers--and

[[Page 15724]]

in that context, the United States and Australia will work together to 
liberalize trade for the benefit of all.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, throughout my public service, I have 
been a supporter of free but fair trade. Trade is important to the 
Arkansas economy because it creates jobs by opening new foreign markets 
to Arkansas' largest exports. In 2003 alone, Arkansas employers and 
farmers benefitted from over $2.9 billion in manufacturing and 
agricultural exports sold around the world. From 1999 to 2003, Arkansas 
exports to Australia totaled some $246 million, according to data 
compiled by the International Trade Administration within the 
Department of Commerce.
  With numbers like these, it is easy to recognize the benefits of 
freer trade. It is also easy to see that as tariffs are reduced and 
trade barriers are removed, these numbers can grow.
  The benefits of trade don't stop there. Through trade we can improve 
economies throughout the world, not only making the world an even 
better customer to all the good products Arkansas has to offer, but 
improving the lives, working conditions, and environmental standards 
for millions of people around the globe.
  However, while there are certainly benefits, there are usually other 
important factors that must be considered. As a supporter of freer and 
fairer trade, I remain passionate that our trade policies must be 
crafted to ensure that all U.S. industries remain competitive in a 
world marketplace that is not always free and, all too often, not 
always fair.
  I remain passionate that each step towards freer trade must also be a 
step towards fairer trade and a more level global playing field. As a 
member of the Senate Finance Committee, I am pleased to have the 
opportunity to influence our Nation's trade agreements. In fact, 
jurisdiction of international trade is a large reason why I sought a 
seat on the committee, because while I certainly recognize the benefits 
that free trade creates, I also know the concerns we must address.
  All too often, we are faced with the news of the loss of more 
manufacturing jobs. For Arkansas, the pictures of plant closings and 
news articles of job loss are more than just stories in the media, they 
are a harsh reality.
  Since July 2000, my State has encountered an enormous loss of 
manufacturing jobs--nearly 35,000 to be exact, according to data 
provided by the National Association of Manufacturers.
  I am deeply troubled that so many Arkansans have lost their jobs, not 
because they can't compete on a level playing field but because the 
cards have been stacked against them. That's what the jobs bill is all 
about--keeping jobs where they belong here at home.
  Does that mean that we should shy away from a pro-trade agenda 
completely? The answer is no. Without a progressive agenda we are left 
with the status quo, which simply doesn't work.
  With the status quo international labor and environmental standards 
remain low while tariffs and barriers for goods produced here in the 
United States remain unacceptably high.
  Agriculture is a great example of this. When U.S. farmers look out at 
the world around them, they see an average bound tariff of 62 percent 
against their products while foreign farmers see just 12 percent 
imposed against their products coming into the United States. And when 
U.S. farmers look around the world, they see Europeans with subsidies 
as high as $400 per acre while our help to our farmers sit at less than 
$40 per acre. That is why we need a strong domestic farm policy.
  The bottom line is that under the status quo jobs don't stay here in 
the United States where they belong. They move overseas. Throughout the 
negotiation of the Australia Free Trade Agreement, it became clear that 
this was a very unique agreement that presented both opportunities and 
challenges. A snapshot of Australia shows a highly developed country 
with comparable environmental and labor standards. Additionally, 
Australia is one of the few countries with which the United States 
enjoys a trade surplus--some $6 to 7 billion annually.
  With the reduction of tariffs and the elimination of other trade 
barriers we can look forward to sending more U.S. manufactured and 
agriculture products to Australia. And that is exactly what happens in 
portions of this agreement.
  In the Australia FTA, 99 percent of the tariffs on manufactured goods 
go to zero on day one. I have heard this agreement called the best 
agreement for manufacturers. With immediate free trade for 99 percent 
of U.S. manufactured goods, I would have to agree, especially when 93 
percent of what we sell to that country is manufactured goods.
  In addition, U.S. agricultural exports to Australia, totaling $400 
million annually, would also gain immediate duty free access, 
benefitting Arkansas soybean farmers, for example.
  However, given that total U.S. agriculture sales to Australia account 
for less than 1 percent of our worldwide sales, my message to United 
States Trade Representative Robert Zoellick has been that the United 
States' No. 1 responsibility to Arkansas farm families is, first do no 
harm.
  There is a significant upside for Arkansas manufacturers and the more 
than 200,000 Arkansas families who make a good living because of this 
industry. However, there was not as much to be gained under this 
agreement in the area of agriculture, and there could have been some 
risk, particularly to my cattlemen who are very important to me and my 
State. Now, Arkansas cattlemen can take on any country around the world 
in a fair global market, but a bilateral agreement like this cannot 
create that kind of fairness. That is why the Doha Round of the WTO is 
so important.
  In the meantime, as the Senior Senator from Arkansas, my priority 
throughout this bilateral agreement was simple--ensure protections to 
safeguard the interest of Arkansas cattlemen and, second, get 
assurances from Australian trade negotiators that they will assist the 
United States in our effort to reform government export programs around 
the world.
  While I still have concerns that I intend to continue to work to 
address with Arkansas cattlemen, my colleagues in the Senate, and 
Ambassador Zoellick in addressing, the Australia FTA does work to 
minimize any adverse impact on U.S. agriculture, and beef in 
particular.
  Specifically, Australian access to U.S. markets for beef is opened 
slowly over an 18-year transition period. Increased imports from 
Australia are estimated to be limited to about 0.17 percent of U.S. 
beef production and 1.6 percent of beef imports to the U.S.
  In addition, several important safeguards are included to ensure that 
additional Australian beef imports will not disrupt the domestic beef 
industry or depress American beef prices. For example, while the 
proposed FTA would gradually phase up Australia's quota of duty-free 
beef imports over 18 years, this phase up cannot begin until American 
beef exports return to levels seen prior to the discovery of bovine 
spongiform encephalopathy, BSE in the U.S. last January.
  Moreover, the first reduction in the tariff will not occur for 9 
years and not reach zero for 19 years after enactment of the FTA. Our 
trade officials also worked to include two additional safeguards in 
this agreement that will further protect the domestic beef industry. 
The first safeguard is ``volume-based'' and would be in effect during 
the 18-year transition period. This means that Australian beef imports 
cannot exceed 110 percent of total imports coming in ``duty-free'' at 
any point during this time period. If this does occur, the tariff rate 
will automatically snap back to the higher tariff we currently impose 
on imports from other countries with which we do not have free trade 
agreements.
  The second safeguard--and the most important in my view--is ``price-
based'' and goes into effect at the end of the 18-year period. This 
means that a tariff is reimposed on Australian beef imports if domestic 
beef prices drop to a certain level after tariffs have been eliminated. 
Both of these safeguards are automatically enforced at our borders 
based on the established import

[[Page 15725]]

volume or domestic price levels. No additional review by Congress or 
the Administration is required to enforce these protective safeguards.
  In short, I feel that our trade officials did a fair job of 
accentuating the positives for Arkansas while minimizing any negatives.
  I am supporting this agreement because on the whole I believe our 
trade team showed sensitivity to Arkansas farm families. I am 
supporting this agreement because I am willing to find common ground 
with our negotiators when I feel they have listened to my concerns and 
acted on them. And I am supporting this agreement with the 
understanding that our negotiators will now turn to the WTO and other 
agreements whose benefits to my cattlemen will be substantial and 
certain.
  I have been proud to work with my Arkansas cattlemen on a wide range 
of issues over the years. Whether it has been on disaster assistance, 
animal identification, trade, conservation, food safety, taxes or 
regulations, we have stood shoulder to shoulder. With the passage of 
this agreement we must now turn our attention to these and other 
important issues, starting with the opening of market places around the 
world that will be truly beneficial to the Arkansas cattlemen.
  With the passage of this agreement, I am committed to doing exactly 
that.
  Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't briefly touch on the 
pharmaceutical provisions in this trade agreement and my concern for 
the precedent that they may set.
  While I am told, and I trust, that this will have no implication on 
the reimportation legislation that I and many of my colleagues support; 
while I am told, and I trust, that this will have no implication on how 
our Medicare and Medicaid programs operate; while I am told, and I 
trust, that this agreement will have no implication on the way the 
Department of Veteran's Affairs purchases their prescription drugs, I 
must restate that I am concerned.
  Nonetheless, I want to reiterate that I am fully committed to 
pursuing Federal policies that will make prescription medications in 
the United States sale and affordable through legislation and future 
trade agreements.
  We have a crisis here in America when it comes to the price of 
prescription drugs and I'm looking for solutions. Furthermore, I'm 
putting the Administration on notice that efforts to block access to 
cheaper drugs for my constituents will be met with resistance by this 
Senator until we make some real progress of our own here in this 
country.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly 
about the Australia FTA. On balance, this agreement will benefit the 
United States and benefit Florida, and I will vote in favor of it. This 
is consistent with my record of supporting fair trade, opening overseas 
markets to Florida exports, creating jobs and economic growth in this 
country.
  This agreement eliminates Australia's manufacturing tariffs, giving 
companies access to Australian markets. Florida exports a significant 
amount of goods and services, such as fertilizers, high technology 
computer simulators and aircraft parts. Florida companies and 
businesses support this agreement, because exports to Australia will 
create jobs in across many sectors.
  Now, this agreement has important provisions relating to Florida's 
citrus industry that merit attention and oversight. The citrus industry 
is Florida's second largest--90,000 jobs depend on it, and the industry 
has a $9 billion economic impact on the State.
  First, I would like to take a moment to reiterate the importance of 
preserving the tariff on imported frozen concentrated orange juice in 
the FTAA and WTO negotiations. I have spoken often in the past about 
this issue and I am going to continue to fight to preserve the tariff. 
Senator Kerry has already acknowledged how important the tariff is to 
Florida. I would also like to again urge the President to state 
publicly, in clear language, that we will not negotiate any reduction 
of the tariff.
  In fact, I am pleased to see that the administration worked with 
Australia in this agreement to address another sensitive commodity, 
sugar. Sugar was excluded from the agreement, because of the unique 
circumstance surrounding the trade of sugar. We must reform 
international sugar trade not on a regional, or bilateral basis, but 
with the WTO. I would hope that the unique circumstances surrounding 
Brazil's manipulation of the citrus trade will lend it similar 
treatment in an FTAA.
  With respect to the Australia FTA, this agreement presents an 
opportunity to resolve an outstanding issue between the U.S. and 
Australia that could pave the way for increased exports of Florida 
citrus. For the past 13 years, Florida's Department of Agriculture has 
worked with Australia to develop a protocol for the export of citrus to 
that country. Unfortunately, we have achieved only limited progress 
because Australia has effectively stonewalled the process at every 
step. Florida's citrus industry has worked hard to meet the import 
protocol requirements set by Australia, only to have Australia change 
them.
  This administration must work with Australia to resolve issues 
inhibiting exports of Florida grapefruit in a timely fashion. This is 
important to the implementation of this agreement.
  Most recently, after Florida's industry addressed the concern raised 
by the Australians on canker, they raised the issue of ``post-bloom 
fruit drop,'' PFD. This is more a weather condition anomaly, not a 
major disease concern that exists in a great deal of citrus production 
around the world, and it very difficult to transmit. And although PFD 
transmission to Australia is not 100 percent impossible, it is as close 
to impossible as anything the industry has seen. Australia must not put 
excessive protocols on Florida's producers because it could be a 
disastrous precedent for Florida's grapefruit industry, as other 
foreign markets could adopt this same non-tariff trade barrier.
  The Australia FTA calls for the development of protocols to address 
many standing trade issues that have existed over the last several 
years--including Florida citrus. The agreement calls for negotiators to 
complete this process within a six month timeframe. This administration 
should seize this opportunity to resolve this issue in order to pave 
the way for increased Florida citrus exports to Australia.
  The U.S. Government should remain committed to producing a 
reasonable, scientifically-based protocol that will not jeopardize 
other export markets or opportunities. Moreover, it is important that 
this process be completed on a timely basis to enable Florida's 
industry to enter the Australian market next season, which opens this 
November.
  While I am a supporting the Australia trade agreement, I would like 
to take this opportunity to express my concern over other provisions 
included in it that could hamper congressional efforts to allow the 
importation of cheaper drugs from other nations.
  I am a strong supporter of importation simply because I can no longer 
defend the exorbitant drug prices paid for by our Nation's citizens. 
The language in the agreement does not expressly prohibit the 
importation of drugs from other nations. However, because it is based 
on current law, any changes allowing importation would be in conflict 
with the terms of the agreement.
  I am confident that the overall benefits of this agreement warrant my 
support and that should similar provisions dealing with importation be 
attempted in future trade agreements, enough opposition would rise to 
ensure that Americans do not continue to subsidize the cost of drugs 
for the rest of the world.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the United States-Australia 
Free Trade Agreement. It has significant benefits to American 
manufacturers in all our States who have suffered too much in our 
troubled economy. In the past 4 years this vital sector has shed 2.5 
million good jobs that may well take years to replace.
  The agreement will immediately remove all Australian tariffs on 
virtually all goods manufactured in the United

[[Page 15726]]

States. In doing so, it will provide a modest competitive advantage in 
the Australian market for U.S. manufacturers over competing firms in 
Asia.
  In the past 4 years, the administration has done very little to 
combat the unfair trade practices of other nations to open their 
markets to more U.S. goods, and this agreement will help at least in 
part to redress the balance.
  Massachusetts companies exported $254 million in goods to Australia 
last year, much of which were products in modern high-tech fields. If 
this agreement had been in place then, 98 percent of those products 
would have been duty free.
  In addition, the fact that Australia has strong labor and 
environmental laws mean that this agreement will not result in a ``race 
to the bottom'' that drives down wages and degrades the environment. 
Many of us are concerned that the administration, in negotiating the 
agreement, was so reluctant, because of its ideology, to try to resolve 
some of our differences with Australia on specific labor issues, but 
those differences are not sufficient to cause rejection of the 
agreement. Good-paying jobs in the United States will not be replaced 
by low-wage jobs abroad in harsh and exploitive conditions.
  In other trade agreements, that problem can be extremely serious, and 
we must continue to be vigilant that trade agreements respect the need 
for strong protection for labor conditions and for the environment as 
well.
  A more serious problem in this agreement however, is its treatment of 
prescription drugs. These provisions are a blatant attempt by the 
administration to bypass Congress and set an irresponsible precedent 
for blocking the reimportation of prescription drugs. They build on 
similar provisions in the Singapore trade agreement. They are a 
statement of the priorities of the Bush administration that put profits 
of drug companies first and affordable drugs for patients last.
  The current rules on importation or reimportation of FDA-approved 
drugs manufactured in FDA-approved plants are indefensible. They 
prohibit anyone except a drug manufacturer from importing drugs into 
the United States. They create a shameful double standard under which 
Canadians, Europeans and other foreign patients can buy American drugs 
at affordable prices, while American drug companies charge exorbitant 
prices to American patients.
  The central issue is fairness for millions of Americans struggling to 
afford the soaring cost of prescription drugs. Americans understand 
fairness. They know it's wrong that for the same prescription drugs, 
U.S. patients pay 60 percent more than the British or the Swiss, two-
thirds more than Canadians, 75 percent more than Germans, and twice as 
much as Italians.
  Prescription drugs often mean the difference between health and 
sickness--or even life and death--for millions of Americans. Drug 
companies are consistently the most profitable industry in the Nation, 
yet they overcharge countless families. It's wrong for patients to go 
without the drugs they need because the Bush administration won't stand 
up for patients against the price-gouging of the pharmaceutical 
industry.
  Senator Snowe, Senator Dorgan, Senator McCain, Senator Daschle, and I 
and other colleagues have proposed legislation to give American 
patients a fair deal at long last. Our proposal will legalize imports 
of safe U.S.-approved drugs manufactured in U.S.-approved plants. U.S. 
consumers will be able to buy FDA-approved drugs at the same fair 
prices as they are sold abroad.
  The drug industry and the Bush administration argue that imported 
drugs jeopardize the health of American consumers because of the 
possibility of counterfeiting or adulteration. Under our proposal, that 
argument can't pass the laugh test.
  Our proposal sets up iron-clad safety procedures to guarantee that 
every drug imported legally into the United States is the same FDA-
approved drug originally manufactured in an FDA-approved plant--whether 
the drug is manufactured abroad and shipped to the United States, or 
whether it is manufactured in the United States, shipped abroad and 
then imported back into the United States.
  Compare our rigorous requirements with what happens today. Fraudulent 
dealers throughout the world can establish Web sites or advertise low-
cost drugs in other ways and claim to be Canadian pharmacies. 
Individuals have no way of knowing whether they are purchasing safe or 
unsafe drugs or whether the seller is legitimate or not. All such sales 
are illegal. The only rule is let the buyer beware.
  The FDA has eloquently testified about the Wild West situation that 
American consumers face every day under the current rules. As long as 
it is illegal to buy safe drugs at low prices, the trade in unsafe 
drugs will flourish. As long as we bury our heads in the sand and fail 
to guarantee the availability of safe and legal imported drugs, 
millions of American patients will continue to risk their health on 
potentially unsafe, unapproved, and counterfeit drugs. Our bipartisan 
proposal gives patients access to drugs at prices they can afford, and 
it protects them against the danger of the essentially uncontrolled and 
uncontrollable counterfeit drugs they face today.
  It is because of the rigorous safeguards in our bill that Dr. David 
Kessler, who served under both Republican and Democratic Presidents as 
Commissioner of the FDA, has stated that our proposal ``provides a 
sound framework for assuring that imported drugs are safe and 
effective.''
  Dr. Philip Lee, one of the Nation's leading authorities on 
prescription drugs, a physician who served as the Assistant Secretary 
of Health under two Presidents, and a former Chancellor of the 
University of California at San Francisco, has emphasized that our 
proposal ``will reduce rather than increase the likelihood of 
counterfeit drugs entering the U.S. supply chain from abroad and that 
drugs imported under the program will meet FDA standards for safety and 
effectiveness.''
  On imported drugs, safety is the first responsibility--and it is a 
responsibility that our bipartisan proposal fulfills. But legalizing 
safe drug imports is only half the battle to bring fair prices to 
consumers. Legalization is meaningless unless it is backed by strong 
measures to prevent drug manufacturers from manipulating the market to 
subvert the law.
  Already, American drug companies are retaliating against imports from 
Canada by limiting the amount of drugs they sell to Canada and denying 
drugs to pharmacies that re-sell them to American patients. A few weeks 
ago, a group of senior citizens was forced to cancel a bus trip to 
Canada because the Canadian pharmacies they relied on for affordable 
drugs were effectively shut down by U.S. drug companies.
  Our proposal includes strict rules to close the loopholes that drug 
companies use to evade the law. Violations will be considered unfair 
trade practices, and violators will be subject to treble damages. Any 
proposal that does not include comparable protections is a fig leaf, 
not a solution.
  The provisions of the Australian Free Trade Agreement, however, opens 
a gaping hole in these protections. One way that a drug company can 
circumvent an importation law is by claiming that an American importer 
who purchases a drug from a European wholesaler has violated the patent 
held by the drug company.
  It has long been a settled feature of patent law that the first sale 
of a product in the domestic market exhausts the patent. If you buy a 
car and then resell it to a friend, the car manufacturer can't sue you 
for violating its patent. A recent court decision, however, stated that 
the rule of exhaustion through first sale does not apply to 
international sales. Therefore, a drug company can make a condition of 
its contract that a foreign buyer won't resell a drug to a United 
States importer. If the foreign buyer does so, the importer could be 
sued for a violation of the patent.
  Broad application of this rule to drug company sales would nullify 
any reimportation bill that Congress passes. That is why our 
legislation specifically states that reimportation of a prescription 
drug is not a patent infringement. The Australia Trade Agreement, 
however, states that it is an obligation of

[[Page 15727]]

the United States to ``provide that the exclusive right of the patent 
owner to prevent importation of a patented product . . . without the 
consent of the patent owner shall not be limited by the sale or 
distribution of the product outside its territory.'' This obligation 
does not apply just to drugs imported from Australia, but to drugs 
imported from anywhere in the world. If this obligation could be 
enforced, it would nullify any drug importation bill passed by 
Congress, and guarantee that drug makers could continue gouging 
American consumers, no matter what the Congress does.
  This prohibition was not added to the agreement because the 
Australians wanted it. Their domestic drug industry is small, and their 
own laws generally do not allow reimportation to the United States. The 
prohibition was added because the U.S. Trade Representative insisted on 
it.
  It's there because the pharmaceutical industry wanted it as a model 
for future agreements. It's there because the Bush administration puts 
the interests of drug companies higher than the interests of American 
patients.
  Fortunately, this provision has limited practical significance. The 
only party with standing to enforce the agreement is the Australian 
Government, and it is unlikely to bring any enforcement action. But it 
puts our country in the awkward position of endorsing a principle 
against the best interests of our people, and it is an ominous 
indication of what the Bush administration will try to do in future 
agreements.
  I intend to vote for this agreement, because of the advantages it 
offers to American business and consumers. The attempts to bar drug 
reimportation included in the agreement are not enforceable in any 
meaningful way. But we must be vigilant against attempts to include any 
such provision in future trade agreements.
  Year in and year out, drug industry profits are the highest of any 
industry in the United States. Yet year in and year out, patients are 
denied life-saving drugs because those astronomical profits are 
possible only with astronomical prices--prices that drug companies 
can't charge anywhere else in the world, because no other country in 
the world would let them.
  A broad coalition of groups representing senior citizens and 
consumers have endorsed our bipartisan proposal. It's time to end the 
shameful price gouging. It's time for basic fairness in drug prices. 
It's time for this Congress to pass a genuine drug import bill. It's 
time for the U.S. Trade Representative to start standing up for the 
interests of the American people, not just the interests of the 
pharmaceutical industry.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am of the view that a basic 
precondition to the U.S. trade agenda operating on the right track is 
having a consistent and coherent policy foundation. I have always 
argued that expanded trade can be a powerful tool to promote economic 
growth and improved standards of living in the United States and around 
the world. It can help countries develop, ease poverty, raise standards 
of living, and eliminate instability. It can encourage the high-wage 
job growth and technological innovation in the United States. In 
general, I consider myself to be someone that supports trade. In fact, 
my record shows that I have.
  But I also believe that trade policy must shape the rules by which 
trade and international economic policy is conducted to maximize its 
benefits and minimize its liabilities, both domestically and 
internationally. Trade liberalization is not inevitably better for the 
United States. But it can be better for the United States, and 
frequently is better for the United States, and we should pursue it 
under the right conditions.
  Based on the results of U.S. trade policy, I am not sure we are doing 
that right now. In fact, I have to wonder if we are on the wrong track 
completely. Here is the bottom line:
  Over two million U.S. manufacturing jobs lost; record and rising U.S. 
trade and budget deficits, so large that the IMF has warned that they 
could destabilize the global economy; moving from a trade surplus to a 
trade deficit in one of the few areas we still have a competitive 
advantage--high-technology products; major cuts by the administration 
in the education, workforce, and science and technology programs that 
ensure we have a competitive edge in these products in the future; 
major increases in outsourcing in the services sector, with no clear 
indication of whether this provides net benefits for the U.S. economy; 
continued major barriers to American products in foreign markets--both 
as a result of tariff and nontariff barriers; a distinct lack of effort 
on the part of the administration to pursue dispute settlement at the 
WTO for countries in direct violation of trade laws; a one-size-fits-
all approach to U.S. trade policy, where little consideration is given 
to the actual ability of individual countries to implement agreements 
or whether the agreements will actually provide long-term benefits; a 
knee-jerk subordination of U.S. economic security to U.S. foreign 
policy concerns; insufficient consultation with Congress by the 
administration during the fast-track process; insufficient explanation 
by the administration of the potential impacts of trade agreements on 
our own economic system, including the environment, taxation, 
healthcare, and so on; and insufficient attention to the impact of 
trade agreements on American workers, in particular the provision of 
trade adjustment assistance so workers can increase their skill-set and 
sustain U.S. competitiveness.
  I would argue what we are doing in U.S. trade policy at this point in 
time is following a policy where trade agreements are assumed to be 
good, with little regard for the actual implications of the agreement 
for our country's overall economic security. I would not suggest that 
economic considerations can be the only rationale for trade agreements, 
but certainly it must be the primary rationale.
  In my State of New Mexico, I have seen directly the unintended but 
very negative consequences of trade agreements in areas typically not 
considered to be an important part of them--things like housing, health 
care, the environment, immigration, and so on. These issues are what 
many people call the ``externalities'' of trade. We have not paid close 
enough attention to these issues in trade agreements, but from where I 
sit we cannot afford to do this any longer. Small provisions in trade 
agreements have had substantial unanticipated consequences over time. 
Trade agreements must look at the overall implications of trade on 
countries, not just trade flows.
  As an example, the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement 
contains language that could have a potentially negative impact on the 
U.S. health care industry. Although the Finance Committee leadership 
received assurances from the Bush administration that this language is 
consistent with our normal obligations under the Government Procurement 
Agreement, I believe the language is ambiguous at best.
  To this end, at yesterday's Finance Committee executive session I 
requested a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services 
stating specifically that this program would not negatively impact our 
current efforts to obtain lower cost prescription drugs for Americans. 
I received the letter this morning, and I will include it for the 
Record.. I have received assurances from the Secretary that the 
provisions under Annex 2-C of the agreement related to pharmaceuticals 
do not require changes in any U.S. Government health care programs.
  However, I requested assurances from the Secretary that Chapter 15.11 
related to Domestic Review of Supplier Challenges do not require 
changes in any U.S. Government health care programs, nor does the 
Secretary intend to use the agreement--Annex 2-C or Chapter 15--to 
change any U.S. Government health care programs. I did not receive this 
assurance, but I want to make it clear that I have an expectation to do 
so. If the administration does not intend to use this free trade 
agreement, there is no real reason that they shouldn't state so 
explicitly. I request again at this time that they do

[[Page 15728]]

so, and I believe that request is compatible with the statements made 
by my colleagues on the floor this afternoon.
  There is another problem with this agreement. I am extremely 
disappointed that the Conrad amendment related to beef safeguards that 
was adopted during the markup in the Finance Committee was not included 
in the final language. I feel very strongly that the vote was 
indicative of the will of the Finance Committee on the FTA and that the 
revised version would have offered additional protections for American 
ranchers and should have been included. The fact it was not included in 
the final language is a violation of the spirit of the Trade Promotion 
Authority, or fast-track, legislation passed in 2002. Combined with the 
lack of attention on the pharmaceutical issue, I think this is a 
mistake on the part of the administration in that it makes the 
formation of bipartisan consensus on trade policy problematic in the 
future.
  These specific criticisms aside, after careful consideration, I felt 
the benefits of this agreement outweighed its liabilities. It is my 
view that the FTA gives a strong boost for trade and investment between 
United States and Australia that will ultimately benefit the economic 
security interests of our country. The FTA eliminates 99 percent of 
Australia's manufacturing tariffs immediately, grants incremental 
tariff-free access to Australia's market for U.S. farmers and ranchers, 
provides enhanced preferential access for U.S. telecommunications and 
service companies, and removes existing foreign investment screening 
procedures that have been a market barrier for U.S. firms. 
Significantly, labor and environment standards in Australia are 
compatible with the International Labor Organization and the laws we 
have in the United States. I believe there is an economic 
complementarity between the United States and Australia that is unique, 
and it should be encouraged.
  So while I have some concerns, I will support the United States-
Australia Free Trade Agreement. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues in the future to ensure that the Administration and the 
Congress work together to establish a broad bipartisan effort to ensure 
we work together more effectively in the future. The goal is to bring 
about expanded international trade so we have economic growth and jobs 
for the American people. That is the bottom line.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the letter to which I referred in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       The Secretary of Health and


                                               Human Services,

                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 2004.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Chairman, Finance Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Grassley: Thank you for your interest in 
     federal and state health care programs, and particularly for 
     your leadership in expanding access to affordable 
     prescription drugs for seniors under the Medicare 
     Modernization Act.
       I understand that in yesterday's markup on the Australia 
     free trade agreement Senator Bingaman asked whether the 
     commitments in this agreement would affect US government 
     health care programs. It is our belief that the provisions of 
     Annex 2-C do not require any change in how US government 
     health care programs are operated--either the Annex does not 
     apply to them by its terms or the programs are operated 
     consistently with the Annex's provisions.
       I am providing a copy of this response to Senator Bingaman 
     as well. Thank you again for your efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                                Tommy G. Thompson.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the United 
States-Australia Free Trade Agreement, FTA, which is currently pending 
before this body. This agreement is the culmination of nearly two years 
of difficult negotiations and hard work by U.S. and Australian 
officials. Today we have the opportunity to pass the implementing 
legislation that would pave the way for formal adoption of this FTA, 
and when that vote occurs, I intend to support this agreement.
  As my colleagues are aware, U.S. exports to Australia totaled over 
$13 billion in 2003. According to the United States Trade 
Representative, USTR, Australia is quickly growing as a major 
destination for U.S. goods. For example, over the past 5 years, the 
rate of growth for U.S. exports to that nation has increased more than 
twofold over U.S. exports to the rest of the world. And during these 
years, aerospace products and parts--a sector vital to U.S. 
manufacturing and our national security--have been the leading growth 
category. In 2003, the aerospace sector exported an impressive $2.4 
billion in merchandise to Australia.
  Since 1999, my home State of Connecticut has witnessed a 72.8 percent 
increase in the value of its exports to Australia. Trade with that 
nation directly supports more than 1,800 jobs in Connecticut. Other 
States have benefited similarly. Indeed, during this same time period, 
U.S. exports as measured by dollar increases have grown faster in only 
seven other nations.
  But these figures and the potential impact of this agreement are even 
more striking when one examines the types of items that we export to 
Australia. I point out to my colleagues that a full 92 percent of U.S. 
exports to that nation are manufactured goods. I know that I don't need 
to remind my colleagues that over the past several years, more than two 
million manufacturing jobs have been lost here in the U.S. More than 
30,000 people in my home State of Connecticut have lost jobs in the 
manufacturing sector.
  In a variety of ways, we here in Congress have sought to address the 
domestic loss of manufacturing jobs and infrastructure. I have worked 
hard to affect a turnaround in the conditions of this sector--long the 
lynchpin of the U.S. economy. It doesn't take an economist to realize 
that this agreement will likely help to strengthen U.S. manufacturing.
  That is not to say that a United States-Australia FTA will be a 
panacea for our manufacturing woes here at home. It will not. But in my 
view, the steady growth and large manufacturing component of United 
States-Australia bilateral trade suggest that it will help. For this 
Senator, that fact is one of the most compelling reasons to support a 
United States-Australia FTA.
  Moreover, it should not go without mention that in 2001, 86 percent 
of U.S. exports to Australia were from small and medium-sized 
businesses. That figure--86 percent--amounted to more than 16,000 U.S. 
firms. If this trend continues, with the passage of this agreement, 
tens of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses here in the U.S. 
also stand to benefit.
  Nearly 2 years ago, I voted against final passage of fast track 
authority for the President. I did so because I didn't believe that 
legislation included adequate language making it crystal clear that a 
primary negotiating objective of future trade agreements must be to 
ensure that our trading partners live up to internationally accepted 
labor and environmental standards.
  In that context, I believe that Australia is a model of what we 
should expect from other governments with whom we craft trade 
agreements. Australia is more than just a staunch ally--it is also a 
nation that has substantial labor and environmental protections. These 
protections will help to safeguard the lives of workers globally and 
the natural resources on which we all depend. Equally as important, 
they will help to ensure that American workers are given a level 
playing field on which to compete.
  Despite my overall support for this agreement, I feel that it is 
important to mention one item of concern. As my colleagues are aware, 
the United States-Australia FTA includes language that would allow 
prescription drug manufacturers to prevent the reimportation of their 
products.
  We do not currently import drugs from Australia, and that is unlikely 
to change given that Australian law prohibits the exportation of 
prescription drugs. So as a practical matter, this provision of the FTA 
will not affect drug prices in this country. But I want

[[Page 15729]]

to make it perfectly clear that this should not set a precedent, nor 
prevent us from adopting a law that would allow drug reimportation in 
the future. While I will live with this provision in the context of a 
bilateral agreement with Australia, I do not believe that it should 
have broader global implications.
  This concern aside, I look forward to voting on the implementing 
legislation for the United States-Australia FTA. I intend to cast my 
vote in favor of this agreement, and I encourage my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, in my home State of South Dakota and 
across America, hardworking producers tirelessly contribute to the 
production of our Nation's food supply. Our Nation's producers 
consistently preserve the safety and wholesomeness of the commodities 
they produce, ensuring America's food security and contributing to our 
overall well-being. It is because of our producers and ranchers that we 
enjoy the safest food supply in the world, and we owe them our thanks.
  It is the well-being of the agricultural community which I am 
concerned for, and it is the well-being of our rural communities that 
is threatened with the possible implementation of the Australian-United 
States Free Trade Agreement.
  It is evident that while Australia could stand to benefit 
substantially from a free trade agreement with the United States, 
limited opportunities exist for the U.S. livestock industry and 
agricultural sector. For example, in 2003, agricultural and food 
exports to Australia accounted for only $611 million. This figure 
accounts for only one percent of U.S. worldwide sales. The overall 
value of U.S. agricultural imports from Australia equaled an astounding 
$2.1 billion. These numbers speak loudly for the type of economic 
opportunity this agreement poses for Australia, at the detriment of our 
domestic producers.
  Our South Dakotan beef producers are dedicated to producing a 
quality, wholesome, and nutritious product. They are successful even in 
the face of market concentration, packer ownership issues, and an ever-
changing agricultural landscape. The FTA with Australia poses yet 
another burden for our agriculture producers. Phasing out U.S. above-
quota duties on beef over an 18-year period and gradually increasing 
and lifting quota levels by the end of that period will not encourage 
growth in our own agriculture economy, and instead, provide a valuable 
market for the Australian agricultural sector.
  The quota increases will take effect when U.S. beef exports return to 
their 2003 level, the level before the discovery of ``mad cow'' disease 
levels, or three years after the effective date of the agreement, 
whichever is earlier. After the transition period, a price-based 
safeguard should be available. Such action, even with supposed 
safeguards after the transition period for market disruptions, will be 
harmful to U.S. beef producers. I have several concerns about how these 
safeguards would be utilized, and the actual effect on our producers.
  Along with my colleagues, I have written to President Bush, as well 
as United States Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, to convey my 
concern about this agreement. While sugar was excluded from the 
agreement, I, and a number of my Senate colleagues, had requested that 
beef and cattle be excluded from negotiations of the Australia FTA as 
well. This request was not heeded. Additionally, a letter was sent 
concerning Australian imports of dairy, yet another sensitive 
agriculture commodity that was included in the FTA, and the potentially 
significant impacts on our pricing system it will have and the 
inconsistencies it presents with respect to our Federal efforts to 
financially assist producers.
  Our beef industry is a crucial component of the agricultural sector 
in South Dakota, and we should not enter into trade agreements with 
Australia, or any other country, that would further damage our 
agriculture industry. Given our weak economy, we cannot afford to lose 
more jobs, and we must guard against economic hardships in our rural 
communities.
  Another disturbing component to the FTA with Australia is the 
prescription drug language. United States citizens continue to pay the 
highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. A study by Families 
USA found that for the 50 drugs most frequently used by seniors that 
year, prices rose 3.4 times the rate of inflation in 2002. Such 
statistics are staggering, and meaningful solutions are needed now.
  That is why I am a cosponsor of S. 2328, the Pharmaceutical Market 
Access and Fair Trade Act, legislation that will provide American 
consumers access to affordable, life-saving medications through 
prescription drug reimportation.
  This legislation would provide South Dakotans with access to 
reimported drugs through personal importation of up to a 90-day supply 
of a drug from Canada, and eventually, once the Food and Drug 
Administration puts safety protocols in place, individuals would be 
able to purchase drugs directly from Canadian and U.S. wholesalers and 
pharmacies would be able to import drugs from facilities in several 
countries that are registered, fully inspected and approved by FDA.
  Unfortunately, the trade agreement before us today threatens to 
dismantle the efforts we are now taking to provide more affordable 
drugs in our country. The agreement includes provisions which require 
that the two governments ensure that brand-name drug companies have the 
right to prevent the importation of their products.
  While supporters of the trade agreement claim that we should not be 
concerned about this provision because Australian law already bans the 
export of subsidized prescription drugs, this sets a dangerous 
precedent for future trade agreements, which we cannot ignore.
  This seems to be yet another attempt by the Bush administration to 
prevent reimportation. Two-thirds of Americans support reimportation as 
an effective strategy to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. The 
President is clearly sending a signal that he cares more about the 
pharmaceutical industry's profits, than access to life-saving medicines 
for U.S. citizens.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to support the United States-
Australia Free Trade Agreement. I have opposed some trade agreements in 
the past because I am not willing to put American jobs on a slow boat 
to China or a fast track to Mexico. However, I am ready to support free 
trade when it is fair trade, and that is what we are talking about 
today.
  This agreement ensures fair trade with one of our closest allies. It 
will also bring an expansion of opportunities for American workers and 
American businesses.
  America's relationship with Australia is about our shared history and 
shared values. Australia has been one of America's staunchest allies in 
times of war, sending troops to fight beside our own in both World War 
I and II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, Afghanistan and now Iraq. In 
sending troops to fight alongside our own in Iraq, Australia was one of 
only three countries to fight along with America from the outset of 
war.
  America and Australia share a common terrorist threat. Al-Qaida 
attacked America on September 11, and 10 Australian citizens died that 
day. A group linked to al-Qaida also killed almost 100 Australians in 
the Bali bombings. Our security relationship is strengthened by the 
ANZUS treaty, through which we work together for our mutual security. 
Now is the time to strengthen our economic partnership with a free-
trade agreement.
  I stand in support of this free-trade agreement because it is good 
for America and good for Maryland. It will protect and even create 
American jobs, and my first priority is fighting for jobs today and 
jobs tomorrow. This free-trade agreement will boost trade, increase 
efficiency and competitiveness, and result in additional foreign 
investment.
  By eliminating Australian tariffs on our manufactured goods, American 
companies will be able to sell goods without penalty to our Australian 
allies. In my own State of Maryland, this

[[Page 15730]]

means semiconductors, medical equipment, and fiber optic cable and 
switching equipment. This could mean as much as $2 billion for the U.S. 
economy in just the first year of agreement.
  This free-trade agreement will also provide new opportunities for 
American farmers. The United States is now the second largest exporter 
of food to Australia, an exchange with a value of almost $400 million a 
year.
  However, I do have concerns about the United States-Australia Free 
Trade Agreement. I am concerned about what this agreement might mean 
for America's families trying to buy prescription drugs. Instead of 
making America's families a priority, this agreement protects drug 
companies and prioritizes the rights of prescription drug patent 
holders.
  We cannot use this as an excuse for Congress not to pass prescription 
drug reimportation legislation. We need a regulated framework for drug 
reimportation so drug reimportation can take place out in the sunshine, 
rather than underground. Congress must act this year to control the 
spiraling cost of prescription drugs for our families.
  With regard to labor rights, I think free-trade agreements should 
always include enforceable and high labor and environmental standards. 
This will ensure that the workers don't miss out and the environment 
doesn't suffer when businesses boom.
  The Australian and American systems have much in common. We share 
democratic processes and labor rights such as freedom of association, 
the right to collective bargain, and the right to strike. We could have 
set the bar higher for workers around the world. Instead the United 
States-Australia Free Trade Agreement is a missed opportunity. It 
contains no enforceable standards to protect labor rights or the 
environment.
  The free-trade agreement with Jordan included a minimum standard of 
labor rights and environmental protection. People now talk about the 
``Jordan standard.'' We finally had an opportunity to create an even 
higher standard, an ``Australia standard'' of labor rights. We could 
have used this standard if we renegotiated CAFTA and for future trade 
agreements. While we ensured our intellectual property rights are 
enforceable, we did nothing about our labor rights in this trade 
agreement.
  I am willing to support the Australia Free Trade Agreement only 
because Australia's own laws are so strong. When I visited Australia, I 
saw that Australia stands up for its families, its workers and its 
environment. Almost 25 percent of Australian employees are union 
members. That's nearly double the level of union representation here. 
Australian workers are paid a livable minimum wage, receive 4 weeks of 
annual leave and are guaranteed high standards of workplace safety. 
Australia's world-class health-care system offers first-rate maternity 
care to its new mothers, with extra time in the hospital and a public 
health nurse to teach first time moms how to care for their newborns.
  The United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement isn't perfect. Yet I 
support it because it will mean jobs for America.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, before we conclude today's debate, 
I just take a minute to thank some of the staff who have worked very 
hard on this agreement.
  I first thank Ambassador Zoellick's team, particularly Ralph Ives, 
Matt Niemeyer, Lisa Coen, and Ted Posner. We worked closely with them 
for nearly 2 years, and I have appreciated their dedication to getting 
a good agreement.
  I also thank the staff of the Senate Finance Committee. On the 
Republican side, Everett Eissenstat, Stephen Schaefer, and David 
Johanson.
  And finally I thank my own staff on the Finance Committee, Russ 
Sullivan and Bill Dauster, who head up our Committee staff. Our trade 
team: Tim Punke, Shara Aranoff, Brian Pomper, and Sara Andrews. Liz 
Fowler, who worked on the pharmaceutical provisions. And I especially 
thank John Gilliland, one of our International Trade Counsels who has 
done a tremendous job, particularly on the difficult and sensitive 
agriculture issues.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Australia is a very important ally and 
trading partner. As we all know, Australia joined the U.S. in our 
military efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This support is vital, 
and it is appreciated.
  While it is important to continue our cooperative relations, I am 
extremely concerned about the negative impact the free trade agreement 
could have on my State of South Dakota and the rest of rural America, 
particularly on the agricultural sector of our economy.
  For many months, I urged our negotiators to exclude beef and cattle 
from the agreement. I am disappointed that they have not only rejected 
this suggestion, but have proposed that we allow the Australians 
additional access to our beef markets.
  The FTA would establish an 18-year phase-in of increased Australian 
access to American markets. While 18 years may seem like a long time to 
some people, I know many ranchers in South Dakota to whom it will not 
seem so long when the phase-in starts and depresses our beef and cattle 
markets.
  Both beef and cattle are very sensitive sectors, and they have become 
even more so with the recent mad cow disease scare. Beef and cattle are 
more sensitively traded items because they are both perishable and have 
cyclical market dynamics--leaving beef and cattle off the table seemed 
to make a lot of sense.
  The administration refused and included beef provisions in the 
agreement. To add insult to injury to ranchers in South Dakota and 
across the country, the administration ignored an amendment on the beef 
safeguards in the agreement that Senator Conrad offered in the Finance 
Committee.
  The administration's actions were wrong on process and wrong on 
substance, in my view.
  The Congress delegates substantial constitutional authority through 
the fast-track procedures. It retains, however, an informal ability to 
recommend changes to the implementing legislation of trade agreements.
  Senator Conrad had a very simple amendment. He said if the 
administration was going to waive critical safeguards for ranchers, 
then the Senate Finance and the Ways and Means Committee must concur. 
This was well in the bounds of the agreement and supported by a 
majority of the members of the Finance Committee.
  The committee then went through the contorted exercise of voting the 
agreement down to make it easier for the administration to ignore the 
Conrad amendment, which they did.
  This action makes it more clear that this agreement is not good for 
the ranchers in South Dakota, and that is the main reason why I oppose 
it.
  Additionally, the U.S. dairy industry should not be faced with added 
unfair competition by allowing the Australians increased access to our 
dairy markets. Dairy producers from around the Nation have expressed 
this concern to me.
  The increased access to our U.S. dairy markets is particularly 
troubling for South Dakota, as we have been working aggressively to 
expand our dairy operations.
  I am also concerned about the current U.S. tariffs on wool that our 
negotiators have agreed should be gradually eliminated over 4 years. We 
have a small, but important, wool industry in South Dakota, and anyone 
familiar with lamb and wool knows that it is a very import-sensitive 
industry. Most producers have struggled over the last decade to simply 
stay in business.
  While it is only indirectly related to the FTA, I also want the 
record to reflect my continuing concern about the treatment of some 
contracts awarded to Australia under the Iraq Oil-for-Food Program. I 
know that several of my colleagues, including Senator Graham of South 
Carolina, are reviewing contracts under the Oil-for-Food Program, and I 
hope that their inquiry will include a review of the wheat contracts 
awarded under that program.
  To that end, my recent exchange of letters with Agriculture Secretary

[[Page 15731]]

Veneman specifically reference contracts awarded to Australian 
producers since the liberation of Iraq, and press reports indicate that 
the specifics of these contracts--in particular the price of wheat--
were the same as those negotiated under the Oil-for-Food Program during 
Saddam's regime.
  According to her letter to me, Secretary Veneman has had USDA 
personnel review these contracts and has assured me that she is certain 
that no preferential treatment was granted to Australian producers at 
the risk of American producers. I hope that is the case, but to ensure 
that it is the case, I am urging Secretary Veneman to provide all the 
research and analysis her staff did to Senator Graham for his Oil-for-
Food investigation and to Paul Voelker who is undertaking an 
investigation on behalf of UN Secretary General Annan.
  In addition, the patent provisions in this agreement raise troubling 
implications. Many of us in Congress--on both sides of the aisle--have 
been working to legalize the safe importation of lower-cost 
prescription drugs from Canada and other industrialized countries.
  It is no secret that the administration has opposed our efforts. And 
what I see in this agreement relating to patents may be of concern in 
how it affects drug importation.
  Simply put, the administration should not use trade agreements as a 
back-door way to impede the safe importation of FDA-approved drugs at 
lower prices. The administration needs to make clear that this 
agreement does not do just that.
  I am also concerned about other provisions in this agreement relating 
to pharmaceuticals and how they may impact other program, such as 
Medicaid, and whether the agreement may impede our ability to alter or 
improve the deeply flawed Medicare drug benefit enacted last year.
  Finally, let me reiterate that, in my judgment, the Australia FTA 
goes too far and treats our farmers and ranchers unfairly.
  Not only am I dissatisfied with both the treatment of our agriculture 
sector in the agreement, but I also have concerns about the process 
executed to implement our negotiated terms.
  It is extremely important that we have a level playing field on which 
American producers can compete. Given a fair chance, American producers 
are among the world's finest. But the deck must not be stacked against 
them.
  I have concluded that this FTA is not in the interests of South 
Dakota. Regrettably, I must oppose it.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the H.R. 
4759, legislation to implement the United States-Australian Free Trade 
Agreement.
  I am excited by the new opportunities for both the United States and 
Australia that will be created under this important agreement. I 
strongly support its passage.
  I thank all my colleagues in the Senate and the other body for their 
hard work. In particular, I thank Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus 
and their staff for working together in a bipartisan way to get us to 
this moment.
  I also thank the U.S. Trade Representative and his team and the 
Australian Embassy for bringing us to this moment.
  Our two economies are closely linked. Australia is one of our most 
important trade partners. The facts speak for themselves.
  Two-way trade between our nations in goods and services totals $28 
billion annually. We have a $9 billion trade surplus with Australia, 
our greatest with any nation. More than 99 percent of our exports to 
Australia will enter duty-free once the agreement goes into effect.
  According to the National Association of Manufacturers, more than 
19,000 U.S. firms are already selling into the Australian market. 
Ninety-three percent of U.S. exports to Australia are manufactured 
goods. As many have pointed out, this is indeed a ``Manufacturer's Free 
Trade Agreement.''
  This agreement is expected to produce an increase in $2 billion 
annually in trade for both nations by 2010. That means the creation of 
as many as 40,000 new jobs directly related to this agreement.
  In my home State of Tennessee, Australia is an important market for 
our goods. Tennesseans export more to Australia than to France. Last 
year, Tennessean companies exported $225 million to Australia, a 10-
percent increase from 1999.
  In turn, The United States is already Australia's largest source of 
imports and second-largest export destination. So this agreement will 
benefit both our countries.
  U.S. farmers benefit from this agreement, too. The United States 
exports $400 million annually in agricultural goods to Australia. These 
exports will receive immediate duty-free access.
  This agreement will offer substantial new markets for U.S. services 
as well. The agreement will provide new openings for 
telecommunications, express delivery, energy, construction, 
engineering, financial services, and many other sectors. And this 
agreement lifts restrictions on U.S. investment in Australia.
  In addition to opening new markets, there are other benefits to U.S. 
and Australian businesses. Australia is the gateway for U.S. businesses 
to Asia. The Australians have close ties to their Asian neighbors.
  This agreement will pave the way for new, dynamic partnerships 
between United States and Australian firms. And with the elimination of 
tariffs and lowering of trade barriers for most industrial products 
under the agreement, U.S. firms, partnering with Australian firms, will 
be able to better compete in the growing Asian markets.
  But this agreement is about more than increasing business 
opportunities. Australia is one of our most steadfast allies and a key 
partner in the war on terror. Australians have fought beside Americans 
in every major conflict in the last 100 years. This agreement 
strengthens an already close bond forged between two old friends.
  This agreement is strongly supported by the business community. The 
U.S. Chamber, the world's largest business federation, representing 
more than three million businesses, strongly supports this agreement. 
The National Association of Manufacturers, the leading voice on 
manufacturing in the United States, has called for its immediate 
passage. I am pleased that we are ready to do that today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 156 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--16

     Akaka
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Voinovich

[[Page 15732]]



                             NOT VOTING--4

     Baucus
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Kerry
  The bill (H.R. 4759) was passed.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate has passed S. 2610, the 
United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. The 
U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which will be implemented by this 
legislation, will provide many benefits to U.S. manufacturers and 
agricultural producers. U.S. consumers will clearly gain from it as 
well. This agreement will also further cement our friendship with 
Australia, a long-time ally and our strong partner in the war on 
terrorism.
  The U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement is an example of the 
importance of Trade Promotion Authority. It has been almost 2 years 
since Trade Promotion Authority was signed into law as part of the 
trade act of 2002. During this time, the United States has signed free 
trade agreements with Chile, Singapore, and now Australia. The 
implementing bills for each of these agreements passed the Congress 
with strong support, so Congress clearly recognizes the benefits of 
trade promotion authority.
  Many people worked hard to see that this vote became a reality. First 
and foremost, this would not have happened without the leadership of 
President George W. Bush. President Bush is committed to building the 
U.S. economy by opening the world's markets to U.S. goods and services, 
and the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement is just the latest of the 
trade accomplishments he has made possible.
  U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick deserves strong 
commendation for his efforts in negotiating this agreement. His 
commitment to expanding U.S. trade opportunities is steadfast.
  I would also like to thank chief U.S. agricultural negotiator Allen 
Johnson for his willingness not only to listen, but also to act, upon 
the concerns of U.S. farmers and ranchers during the negotiations. Many 
others at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative deserve my thanks 
as well.
  I commend my colleagues on the Finance Committee for their interest 
in seeing that the agreement was concluded and that the implementing 
bill was passed. I would like to extend a special thanks to the ranking 
member of the Committee, Mr. Baucus. We have worked together over the 
years to expand trade to the benefit of U.S. workers, farmers, and 
consumers, and I am pleased with the outcome of our current efforts 
with the passage of this implementing bill.
  My staff on the Finance Committee has worked diligently over the past 
weeks on the implementing bill and other materials connected with it. 
My goal was to have this legislation passed prior to the August recess, 
and they were instrumental in making this happen. Moreover, my Finance 
Committee staff was engaged in consultations with officials from the 
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative throughout the negotiations, 
which began way back in March 2003, so this has been a long process for 
them. I greatly appreciate their hard work.
  My Chief Counsel and Staff Director, Kolan Davis, deserves 
recognition. His talent in managing many legislative issues, including 
trade, is readily apparent.
  The Chief International Trade Counsel of the Committee, Everett 
Eissenstat, worked tirelessly to see that the passage of this 
legislation would actually occur, so today's vote is yet another 
testament to his skills. I would also like to thank the rest of my 
trade staff--David Johanson, Stephen Schaefer, Dan Shepherdson, and 
Zach Paulsen--for all of their hard work and dedication to the Finance 
Committee's work and to the people of Iowa.
  Mr. Baucus's Finance Committee staff also deserves recognition. Russ 
Sullivan and Bill Dauster, respectively staff director and deputy staff 
director of Mr. Baucus's Finance Committee staff, worked well with my 
staff throughout the process.
  I also appreciate the efforts of Tom Punke--Mr. Baucus's chief 
international trade counsel--and Sara Andrews, Shara Aranoff, John 
Gilliland, Pascal Niedermann, and Brian Pomper.
  Finally, I would like to thank Polly Craighill of the office of the 
Senate Legislative Counsel for the many hours she put into drafting the 
implementing bill. Without her patience, hard work, and skill, today's 
vote would not have been possible.
  I look forward to the signing of this legislation into law by 
President Bush.

                          ____________________