THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display    

In regard to working closely with Congress, understand that Congress has the authority to regulate international, or what you call interstate, and foreign commerce. We guard this very jealously. We have to, in the process of doing that under the practicality of 535 Members of Congress and negotiating with 138 different countries in the World Trade Organization on the issues of reducing tariff and nontariff trade barriers or settling any sort of dispute. From time to time, Congress has given the President of the United States the authority to do that in negotiation. But we do it with a very tight rein. I suppose in the future it will be even more of a tighter rein. That requires a person in Mr. Zoellick's position as U.S. Trade Representative to work very closely with the Congress, particularly the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, consulting with us on a regular basis. That consultation,

[Page: S1045]  GPO's PDF

   I will mention a few of the challenges that face Mr. Zoellick, and then I will go into why Mr. Zoellick is ideally suited to deal with them.

   One important trade challenge right around the corner is the free trade area of the Americas negotiations.

   The objective of these talks, which are supposed to conclude in 2005, is to create a single free trade zone of nearly 700 million people, stretching from the Arctic Ocean in the North, to Tierra del Fuego in the South.

   The free trade area is the single most important economic initiative we have undertaken with Latin America since President Kennedy launched the Alliance for Progress in 1961.

   Latin America is our fastest growing regional trade partner. Roughly 46 percent of all the goods manufactured in this country are exported to our own hemisphere. We export large amounts of our agricultural products to the FTAA countries as well.

   Our continued prosperity, and our leadership in world trade, clearly rests on the success of these talks.

   But when you see the concentration of trade in the Western Hemisphere, you know why these talks are singularly important.

   Yet despite the obvious importance of the FTAA, there is little agreement on the major issues under discussion. It's time to get these talks moving again. And it's time for the United States to resume its leadership in trade not only in the Western Hemisphere but in all areas.

   The FTAA Ministerial Conference is coming up in Buenos Aires in the first week in April. Two weeks after the FTAA Ministerial, the United States will attend the Third Summit of the Americas in Quebec City.

   Mr. Zoellick knows how important U.S. leadership is in getting the FTAA talks headed in the right direction.

   And more importantly, he has the skills and the background to get the job done.

   What about these skills?

   For example, while serving in the former Bush administration, Mr. Zoellick played a key role in the NAFTA process. At one point during the NAFTA negotiations, when the talks weren't going well, Mr. Zoellick served as a special channel with then President Salinas of Mexico to keep the negotiations on track.

   Also during the former Bush administration, Mr. Zoellick served as Counselor of the Department of State, and Under Secretary of State for Economics. At the State Department, he helped launch APEC, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation group for advancing trade and prosperity in that region.

   The creation of APEC was a tremendous achievement. It is a highly successful international trade and economic forum. APEC's main agenda is to dismantle trade and investment barriers in the region, to strengthen an open, multilateral trading system, and to encourage constructive interdependence by encouraging the flow of goods, services, capital, and technology.

   Mr. Zoellick's central role in launching APEC clearly demonstrates his deep commitment to the principle of international cooperation that is at the heart of America's leadership in promoting global free trade.

   It also demonstrates his broad vision, and his ability to accomplish big things.

   In recognition of his outstanding service to his country, Mr. Zoellick received the Distinguished Service Award, the State Department's highest honor.

   Another important trade challenge this year is to launch a new round of multilateral trade negotiations at the WTO Ministerial to be held later this year in Qatar.

   The failure of the Seattle WTO Ministerial was a terrible embarrassment for the United States, and a major setback for trade liberalization around the world than we now realize 18 months later.

   The collapse of the Seattle talks was also a major setback for American agriculture. Without a comprehensive new round of global trade negotiations, it will be extremely difficult for American agriculture to gain access to new markets, and to get rid of the trade-distorting subsidies and barriers that shut our agricultural producers out of foreign markets.

   If we lose the momentum for the liberalization of world agricultural markets that we gained with the successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, we may never be able to recover.

   Here too, Mr. Zoellick's experience demonstrates that he is the right person for the job of U.S. Trade Representative.

   In 1992, when it looked like the fundamental disagreement between the European Union and the United States over agricultural trade liberalization would end the Uruguay Round in failure, Mr. Zoellick helped forge the Blair House Accord, the compromise agriculture agreement that broke the negotiation logjam, and saved the Uruguay Round, not just for agriculture but for other segments of the economy that was held by them.

   Thanks to Mr. Zoellick's efforts in crafting the Blair House accord, negotiators then immediately were able to clear the political hurdles that brought about an agreement.

   As a result, the World Trade Organization agreement on agriculture represents the first serious step toward reform of the international rules governing trade in agricultural products. That agreement is now the spring board for current efforts to further liberalize world agricultural trade. Other trade challenges beyond agriculture that Mr. Zoellick and the Congress will be dealing with include the United States-Jordan Free-Trade Agreement, the United States-Vietnam Trade Agreement, we have the Singapore free-trade negotiations, and on December 5th of last year we began the Chile free-trade negotiations. Those latter two are on the table. We would expect perhaps some conclusion shortly.

   Mr. Zoellick's record of achievement clearly demonstrates he has the ability to handle those which might be called lesser issues because they are bilateral but still very important.

   During his distinguished career, he has led various bilateral trade negotiations with the European Union, with Korea and other nations, but most importantly they involved the structural impediment initiative with the country of Japan.

   I will say a word about another tough trade challenge, one that will involve, hopefully, this Congress. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I can help move it along. We had discussions with Senator Baucus about that, even this week, about how he and I can get together and try to solve some of the things involved with giving the President negotiating authority; in other words, that authority which allows a President to move forward and finalize a multilateral or WTO-involved trade agreement. It is very important to have that even for bilateral agreements but perhaps less important for bilateral than for the multinational, multilateral negotiations. It will be very difficult to write this legislation. We shouldn't have any illusions that it will be easy to accomplish. I can't think of a single thing more important to restoring America's leadership in trade and to preserving America's negotiating credibility.

   It is certainly true, as many have pointed out, that the United States can start negotiations without the President having trade negotiating authority. We know this from our experience during the Uruguay Round when it took 2 years to get legislation renewing the President's trade negotiating authority through Congress after the Uruguay Round started. But doing it that way misses the point. The President--not just this President, any President--needs negotiating authority from Congress because his negotiating credibility is diminished, sometimes a little, most often a lot, without that grant of authority from Congress. That is as true at the start of formal trade negotiations as it is at the conclusion--maybe a little less at the beginning than at the end.

   We would all be better off if we could have the President go to the table with Congress saying here is what we want you to do for us; here is how we want

[Page: S1046]  GPO's PDF

   This is sometimes referred to as fast track. It is innovation. We all remember from history, designed in large part as a response to the diminished U.S. negotiation credibility that resulted from the failure of Congress to

   implement some of the trade agreements concluded during the Kennedy Round. Here again I think Mr. Zoellick can play a very important role. I think he has a record that speaks for itself.

   Other than U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills, Mr. Zoellick spent more time with the Congress than any other administration official to get fast track authority passed in 1991. I have confidence in Mr. Zoellick's ability to work with Congress, to get a bill renewing the President's trade negotiating authority through Congress. We need to at least start that process, even though it is a very difficult process, and do it soon. That is the conversation that Senator Baucus and I have had to this point.

   I conclude with why I view Mr. Zoellick's nomination with enthusiasm. It is a very extraordinary record and has some length. I have looked carefully at what he has done during the past 20 years in promoting America's trade interests. That record tells me Mr. Zoellick understands that trade matters to every American. It matters to the farmers in my hometown of New Hartford, IA, who want to sell his or her grain in the international markets. It matters to the Caterpillar workers in Illinois who make tractors for sale in Asia, Europe, and America. It matters to John Deere workers in Waterloo, IA. One out of five jobs on that assembly line are related to export. These are very good jobs and on average, jobs connected with trade, pay 15 percent above the national average.

   It matters to the Boeing employees in the State of Washington who make state-of-the-art aircraft for every major world aircraft maker. It matters to the radio workers who make avionics in Cedar, IA, that go into these Boeing airplanes. It is going to involve their jobs, as well. Trade is very important in almost every State. But 40 percent of our agricultural products are exported. I don't have a dollar value on that, but I know for manufacturing and services, the dollar value of those exports is many times what it is for agriculture. Perhaps most importantly, open international markets increasingly matter to millions of very small entrepreneurs as well. These are the people who compete for business every day, wherever they find it, anywhere in the world.

   Bob Zoellick understands that all of these Americans, whether they toil on the farm, whether they punch the time clock at the assembly line, or whether they work in the high-tech new economy, are able, through these jobs, which are better jobs because of international trade, to pay their mortgage; they are able to support their families; and they are able to make their communities better places to live.

   I believe Mr. Zoellick has already shown himself to be an eminent public servant with an outstanding record of leadership in trade policy who has already served his country well. I have come to know him and to respect him. I know that my distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle will as well.

   As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I strongly urge my distinguished colleagues to vote to confirm this nomination and appoint this outstanding individual to America's most important international trade position.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

   Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the esteemed Senator from West Virginia.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Montana.

   I rise to speak not to question the nomination of Mr. Zoellick--he is obviously qualified for the position of U.S. Trade Representative--but to question the trade policy priorities of administrations past and present. For the problems our manufacturers and workers face today are not Democratic problems or Republican problems, they are problems with a trade liberalization approach that needs to be rethought and reinvigorated. That approach has led to record trade deficits and alarming trends in income inequality. The current crisis in the U.S. steel industry demonstrates that unfettered importation of unfairly traded products causes serious harm to our manufacturers and workers.

   Sustained reflection on the causes and consequences of the trade deficits has led me to three conclusions. First, there must be a general recognition that low-wage competition from less-developed countries is part of the problem. The low wages in those countries both undercut the economics of production in the United States and impede the development of a middle class that can purchase U.S. exports. Our trade policy cannot be complacent as first-world manufacturing plants are relocated to take advantage of less-developed labor markets, a phenomenon that makes it increasingly difficult for American employers to stay competitive and, at the same time, pay good wages and provide good benefits. If, as President Bush maintains, we are to be compassionate, let us start by making sure that American workers are not made worse off--on balance--by future moves toward freer trade with less-developed countries.

   Indeed, the inevitable result of the current trade liberalization approach in many historically high-wage and efficient industries is bankruptcy. Need I tell Senators you about all of the steel companies in, or on the verge of, bankruptcy? Are we so naive as to believe that the problems of the steel industry--as well as the elimination of millions of manufacturing jobs across the economy since 1979--are unconnected to predatory trade practices by foreign producers and their governments? For those who have any doubts on this score, I recommend study of the recent Commerce Department report entitled ``Global Steel Trade.''

   Second, we must recognize that a key objective of many of our trading partners in any full trade negotiation is to weaken U.S. trade laws, including our antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard regimes. It is an iron law of international trade negotiations and the implementation of international trade agreements--that, if the trade laws are ``on the table,'' they will be weakened. Is there any doubt that the antidumping and countervailing duty laws were weakened in the Uruguay Round negotiations? Is there any doubt that we see more evidence of this weakening every day? Has the trade representative ever prevailed at the World Trade Organization in defending U.S. implementation of U.S. trade law? The United States simply must not once again enter into an open-ended negotiating round in which countries such as Japan, Korea, and the European Union are able to work in concert to eviscerate the framework of fair trade. Equally important, we cannot permit any international tribunal to interpret and to apply the trade laws of the United States.

   Third, in addition to including strong labor and environmental protections in all trade agreements, we must adopt and enforce policies to attack hidden and non-tariff barriers and to effectively counter or challenge foreign subsidies for research, development, and exports. For example, we must do more to address the manner in which producers in many countries are able to control distribution in their home markets and thereby shut out their U.S. competitors. The current trade liberalization approach limits the ability of the United States to use import restrictions to ensure fair trade in our markets while giving mercantilist foreign countries virtually a free hand in excluding selected U.S. exports from their markets. In light of the record U.S. trade deficit, this imbalance can no longer be tolerated.

   One last thought for Mr. Zoellick: The 106th Congress passed a joint resolution calling on the President to request an investigation of the steel industry under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974. Such an investigation is necessary because of the crisis conditions I alluded to--total imports for 2000 approached the record levels set during 1998, prices for many steel products are at record lows, and many companies are in bankruptcy. On January 19, 2001, in a letter to the Chairman of

[Page: 
S1047]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Robert Zoellick to be United States Trade Representative.

   I know Mr. Zoellick personally and am confident that he has the background and skills to do an outstanding job. He is an exceptionally bright and talented individual with a broad understanding of trade policy and a strong commitment to public service. President Bush deserves real credit for this selection.

   Robert Zoellick has an extensive background that should prepare him well for his new position. During the administration of former President George H. W. Bush, he served as Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House, as Counselor of the Department of State and Undersecretary of State for Economics, and as the President's personal representative for the G-7 Economic Summits in 1991 and 1992. In the 1980's he also served at the Department of the Treasury in various positions, including counselor to Secretary James A. Baker III.

<<<

>>>

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display