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    

The 1995 Framework Agreement on Autos and Auto Parts between the United States and Japan was allowed by the Government of Japan to expire at the end of 2000. This is despite the Agreement's failure to accomplish its stated objective to significantly expand sales opportunities resulting in purchases of foreign parts by Japanese firms in Japan and through their transplants in the United States and to resolve market access problems for foreign autos and auto parts in Japan. The U.S. Government, working closely

[Page: S1049]  GPO's PDF

   I urge the Bush administration, and Mr. Zoellick in particular, to make the renegotiation of a stronger and more effective agreement one of its earliest and highest priorities.

   Regarding Korea, despite two separate automotive trade agreements between the United States and Korea intended to open Korea's market, we now have a rapidly increasing automotive trade imbalance between the two countries. Korea exported almost 500,000 vehicles to the United States last year but imported only 4,300 foreign vehicles from everywhere in the world. Foreign vehicles make up only .32 percent of Korea's total vehicle market, making it the most closed market in the developed world.

   This is not a level playing field and should not be tolerated. This imbalance has occurred despite efforts by United States auto manufacturers to make long-term and extensive efforts to increase sales in Korea. I urge the administration and Mr. Zoellick to redouble the United States efforts to achieve market access progress in Korea, especially in urging the Government of Korea to take specific actions to reverse the anti-import attitudes and policies that so blatantly discriminate against foreign vehicles in Korea.

   Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the nomination of Robert Zoellick as the next United States Trade Representative. I think that Bob Zoellick has the experience, education, and leadership skills to be an outstanding USTR.

   Mr. Zoellick has had a broad range of experience in the executive branch, including the Treasury Department, State Department, and the White House. Chairman GRASSLEY has detailed his record of accomplishment.

   Mr. Zoellick's experience is not just from the view of a government administrator. Since 1997, he has held a number of positions with private sector firms involved with asset management and capital development. This unique combination of public sector and private sector experience will prove vital to his performance as USTR.

   As trade becomes more important to the economy of Utah and the United States as a whole, it is imperative that we have senior officials that understand the significance of free and fair trade. And it is critical that they can view trade issues with a vision of the attendant foreign policy, national security, and economic policy considerations that are at stake. I think Bob Zoellick can see the world from many perspectives.

   The United States faces a number of key trade issues in the next few years. It will be a great advantage to American workers and American consumers if we can create a bi-partisan U.S. trade policy.

   We need to look at the issue of granting new trade promotion authority to Ambassador Zoellick. But fast track authority alone should not replace the hard work and effort to forge bi-partisan support for U.S. trade initiatives.

   My experience on the Judiciary Committee has taught me that intellectual property issues will play an increasingly important role in the international economy. We must make sure that the creative efforts of those who produce software, entertainment such as music and movies and breakthrough drugs and medical devices get the benefit of TRIPS implementation and enforcement. Frankly, we need to get better across the board at enforcing the trade agreements that we negotiate.

   We also need to resist any efforts to impose unnecessary barriers on the emerging Internet economy. For example, we must work to see that computer downloads are not unduly hindered through tariffs or technical barriers.

   I want to re-enforce many of the comments that my friend from West Virginia. Senator BYRD made with respect to the crisis among our domestic steel producers. I want to work with Mr. Zoellick and Senator O'Neill on the efforts by the Bush Administration to re-energize our domestic steel industry. I think at his confirmation hearing that Mr. Zoellick made the correct comment to Senator ROCKEFELLER, my other good friend from West Virginia, on the potential use of section 201 authority with respect to steel . We must come up with a comprehensive plan to help U.S. producers of steel like Geneva Steel from my state of Utah. Part of this plan must focus on foreign dumping and countervailing duties.

   At his confirmation hearing, Majority Leader LOTT and I raised the bananas and beef cases and the use of the carousel rotation of product retaliation lists. We can't let the Europeans avoid the consequences when the lose WTO cases. Frankly, I think that one of the first things this Administration ought to do in the trade area is to follow the law we passed last year and immediately implement the carousel system.

   The Korean government's recently announced $2.1 billion bailout of Hyundai electronics raises many troubling questions. This development may be a direct violation of commitments made to the IMF in 1997. Specifically, USTR must examine whether this new bailout program is in accordance with the commitments made in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the 1997 IMF Standby Arrangement addressing, respectively, bank lending practices, and government subsidies and tax preferences. I trust that USTR will look into this, and I want my colleagues to know that this is an issue that I take very seriously. Frankly this government bailout must be scrutinized by USTR so that we can be sure that American high technology firms like Micron can remain competitive in the international marketplace.

   I am confident that Bob Zoellick can work effectively with Commerce Secretary Evans and other key Administration officials to bring the American public the promise of free and fair trade. We need to open new trading opportunities, but we also need to enforce U.S. trade laws and ensure compliance with international trade agreements.

   Many believe--and I believe--that the Office of the United States Trade Representative is the best governmental trade organization in the world. We ask Mr. Zoellick to lead and inspire this very strong agency to perform even better. The citizens of Utah and throughout the United States have much at stake in the performance of USTR.

   As a Senator who believes in the long-term benefits to America of free and fair trade, I plan to vote for Robert Zoellick and stand ready to work with him and my colleagues to build a strong, bipartisan trade policy.

   Mr. President, I thank all Senators and I yield the floor.

   Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CRAPO). The clerk will call the roll.

   The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I now yield to my good friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, for 15 minutes.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

   Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus.

   Mr. President, I intend to vote for Bob Zoellick to be the U.S. Trade Representative. I am not a big fan of the U.S. Trade Representative's office--never have been--under Republican or Democratic administrations. My view is that our trade policy in this country is a mess. It has gotten worse, not better. We are headed towards a $440 billion merchandise trade deficit.

   In fact, it might be useful to show a chart that describes what has happened to our trade deficits. It shows that since 1993 our merchandise deficit has ballooned from $136 billion to over $440 billion. All the Republicans and all the Democrats that give us soothing assurances and say this trade policy of ours is working really well ought to take a look at these deficits, that are ballooning, year after year after year after year.

   I want to talk a little about why I think it is so important, as we vote on

[Page: S1050]  GPO's PDF

   I am told that we have, in the last 8 years, negotiated 304 trade agreements. I am also told, that some of the agreements cannot even be located in the offices of the Trade Representative, let alone get them enforced. At the time when we have negotiated 304 trade agreements, our trade deficit has increased over 300 percent.

   Let me show you what bothers me from time to time about our current trade strategy. Let me do it in terms of T-bone steaks. I have a chart I want to share with you.

   We negotiated a trade agreement with Japan in 1989 on the issue of beef. The U.S. could not successfully get beef into the country of Japan. So our negotiators went to Japan, and they negotiated really hard, and they got an agreement, and then they had a big celebration. They had banquets, and, Lord, they had headlines in the newspapers: ``We have reached an Agreement with Japan.'' Good for them. God bless them.

   Now 12 years later, we are getting more beef into Japan. Good for us. Do you know what the tariff is on every pound of beef that goes into Japan? Incidentally, these are T-bone steaks on the chart. As this chart shows, there is a 38.5-percent tariff on every pound of American beef going into Japan. This is 12 years after the great agreement with Japan, a country, incidentally, that has over a $70 billion merchandise trade surplus with us, or to say it another way, a U.S. deficit with Japan.

   By what justification does anyone who negotiates this kind of trade agreement stand here and say to American producers: We really scored a victory for you this time? These people obviously did not wear jerseys that said ``USA'' when they negotiated this one. They said: We will agree, after a phase-in, to a 50-percent tariff that will be reduced over time. Great, except it has a snap-back provision which says, the more you get in, the higher the tariff will be. So guess what. Twelve years later, we have a 38.5-percent tariff on every single pound of beef going to Japan. It is a failure. Not only do people not care about it, most people don't know about it; and nobody is going to do much about it.

   If not T-bone steaks, what about cars? We just finished a trade agreement with China. We have over a $70 billion merchandise trade deficit with China, and it is growing rapidly. Here in the Senate, we did not have a vote on the bilateral trade agreement with China. If we did vote, I would have voted no. We had a vote on PNTR, but we did not have a vote on the bilateral trade agreement. We had negotiators go to China, and once again, apparently, they left their jerseys at home, the ones who say: ``USA''--``Here is what I am negotiating for. I want a good deal for us.''

   Our negotiators go to China and negotiate an agreement. At the end of the agreement, after a long phase-in, here is what we have done on automobiles. We have said: Yes, there are probably 1.2 billion people over there, and if they are able to increase their standard of living, at some point they will become more affluent and want to start driving cars. If that happens there will be more automobile trade between the United States and China. What we will agree to, China, we will grant you access to our market at a 2.5-percent tariff on any cars, and we will allow you to have a tariff that is 10 times higher--25 percent--on any U.S. automobiles going to China.

   What on Earth are we thinking about? Here is a country that has a huge surplus with us, or we have a huge deficit with them. We negotiate an agreement with them and say: Oh, yes, by the way, we will allow you to impose tariffs on automobiles 10 times higher than those we impose on you.

   Time after time, there are examples of the incompetence of these negotiators, let alone the fact that once we get these agreements, as bad as they are for this country, they are not enforced. Do you know how many people we have enforcing our trade agreements? Yes, even the bad trade agreements with

   China? Seven. There used to be 10; now there are 7. China has done little to comply with any of our trade agreements. So now we have gone and negotiated a new bilateral agreement that is poorly designed and at the same time decreased the number of people monitoring and investigating how China is not playing by the rules. Our staff for China went from 10 to 7.

   At some point we have to realize, that ballooning trade deficits we currently have in this country, are unhealthy for our country, our future and our economy.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

   Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, might I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 25 minutes 7 seconds remaining. The Senator from Iowa has 32 minutes 24 seconds.

   Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.

   Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana. I noticed on the floor the presence of my good friend and colleague from Louisiana. It was actually her idea that drew me over here. I am glad she is here. I will try and be brief in my remarks and then defer to the Senator from Louisiana to share some of her thoughts.

   Let me say, first of all, I am a strong supporter of Bob Zoellick to be the new U.S. Trade Representative. I think he will make a very fine Trade Representative. We worked very closely together over the years on other matters. He was at the State Department. I know him to be tremendously thoughtful, a good listener, one who is not afraid of new ideas and is attentive to a wide diversity of interests dealing with some of the issues affecting some of the very regions of the world I will address some remarks to, and that is Central America and Latin America back in the 1980s.

   So I am a strong supporter of Bob's. He will do a great job. The President is lucky to have his willing services in this administration.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 4 minutes.

   (The remarks of Ms. Landrieu and Mr. Dodd pertaining to the introduction of S. 260 are located in today's RECORD under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

   Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields to the Senator?

   Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I don't think I have authority to yield time, but I think Senator Baucus would be comfortable yielding 10 minutes.

   Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her work.

   Mr. President, I support Mr. Zoellick. I am not here to oppose his nomination at all, but I would like to express my great reservations about the direction of our trade policy. Unless I am mistaken, I think I heard the majority leader today out on the floor saying that we need to, of course, have the trade but we need for it to be fair trade. I was pleased to hear his very strong remarks.

   I guess it was about maybe a month ago that I was on the Iron Range of Minnesota with the taconite workers at a gathering at Hoyt Lakes. There were about 1,000 workers there, although 1,300 of them have lost their jobs. The LTV Steel Company closed down. They shut down the taconite operation. Fourteen-hundred workers on the Iron Range lost their jobs. Other workers, by the way, are being laid off at other mines. It is not just those workers. It is the subcontractors. It is their families. It is the people in the community.

   I never mind saying this because it is just true. Even though you talk about one region of the State, you never want to act as if you don't care about other regions. Northeastern Minnesota is like a second home to Sheila and I. This is where our campaign started in 1989. They supported me when no one

[Page: S1051]  GPO's PDF

   I always go to one high school just to stay in touch with the students there. I have been there about three or four times in the last year or two. The discussions with the students are so poignant. They want to know if they can afford college. They want to know what is going to happen to their mom or dad, and whether or not there will be any jobs for them. These are good jobs that pay probably $65,000 a year, counting health benefits. There are not a lot of other jobs such as that. Of course, there will be a future because when you have people with such a strong work ethic and who are so self-reliant and self-sufficient it will happen.

   But I want to say this on the floor of the Senate. When I was at this gathering, I was looking out over about 1,000 workers. And I thought to myself: These are industrial workers. All too often in our trade policy and all too often on the floor of the Senate and on the floor of the House of Representatives, they have been out of sight and out of mind. I could add the autoworkers to the steelworkers, and a lot of industrial workers as well.

   In this particular case, the import surge of steel --in the case of taconite workers, it is semifinished steel --slab steel from Brazil, from South Korea, from Russia, and from other countries way below our cost of production has essentially put them out of work. These steel workers on the Iron Range of Minnesota want to know where they fit into this international economy. I say this to Mr. Zoellick--and I will say it every day for the rest of my time in the Senate--why can't we have a trade policy that, of course, recognizes the importance of trade but also works for working people in our country? If it is true that we live in an international economy--yes, it is true--then if you care about human rights, you have to care about it not only in our country but other countries. If you care about the right of people to join a union and make decent wages for their families--you have to care about that, not only in our country but other countries as well--if you care about religious freedom, you have to care about this in our country but other countries as well. If you

<<<

>>>

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