The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“LOOKING PAST DOHA” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Commerce was published in the Senate section on pages S11354-S11355 on Nov. 1, 2001.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
LOOKING PAST DOHA
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the upcoming WTO meeting in Doha. I want to express my very serious concerns about the direction I believe these negotiations are heading.
Let me start with the area with which I have the most serious concern; that is, protecting U.S. trade laws. Enforcement of our trade laws is one area where the administration and the Congress have recently worked very closely together.
On issues such as softwood lumber and steel, Congress and the administration have worked together to ensure that our companies and workers are protected from unfair trade practices. It has been working well.
Recent lumber decisions by the National Trade Commission and by the Department of Commerce, as well as the free trade decision on steel dumping onto U.S. markets, are areas where the administration and the Congress worked together on enforcing our trade laws against unfair foreign trade practices.
These cases demonstrate why our trade laws are critical, and also why the case for defending trade laws is one that has always been bipartisan. Indeed, earlier this year I was joined by 62 of my colleagues in a letter urging this administration not to weaken our trade laws.
I again urge the administration to accept the inescapable fact that our trade laws are part of the political bargain on trade. Without assurances that America has the laws to protect itself against unfair foreign trade practices, future trade agreements will be very tough to sell.
Americans are not wanting to buy into a trade agreement if they are not assured the trade laws are protected and upheld so we can protect ourselves against other countries' foreign trade practices.
Recent history demonstrates why we should be concerned. Both NAFTA and the recent GATT and WTO negotiations have significantly undermined enforcement of America's trade laws.
There have been suggestions that we use WTO negotiations as an opportunity to address due process and transparency concerns in the application of other countries' trade laws.
These are problems of compliance with existing WTO rules and not problems requiring us to revisit the rules themselves.
Indeed, our existing international rules are constantly under attack. Countries are now trying to achieve through litigation what they failed to achieve in previous negotiations.
Remember that our trade laws are WTO legal. They conform with and are consistent with the principles and the rulings of WTO. We are not trying to do anything unfair. We are just trying to be fair and make sure we are protected.
Realizing that many of our trading partners want to weaken our trade laws, I was quite surprised to read that the draft declaration indicated a willingness to renegotiate these rules. This is the draft declaration looking toward Doha.
Why should we do this? What do we gain? Where is the affirmative agenda?
At a minimum, the United States should be seeking to address the underlying market distortions that cause dumping and that cause other countries to subsidize. We should be trying to correct the erroneous WTO decisions that have been handed down for the last several years. Yet all the draft declaration indicates is that we will engage in a wholesale renegotiation of these rules.
I find that very disturbing. I hope our trading partners realize that when it comes to weakening our trade laws through further negotiation they will face stiff, unyielding, and bipartisan opposition in the Congress.
I am also concerned about the declaration's environment and labor provisions.
I was happy to see the reaffirmation of our commitment to the sustainable development, and that the WTO will increase its focus on the relationship between multilateral environmental agreements and trade rules. Both these issues deserve even more attention.
I am concerned, however, about the comments from our negotiators that these are ``Europe's issues.''
Sustainable development is not a concern of Europe alone. I hope the lessons of Seattle have not somehow been lost on us. These are American concerns--more so now than ever.
So too is the issue of labor and trade. The declaration makes the mistake of suggesting that labor standards are--and I quote--``social issues,'' appropriately handled by the ILO.
I want to be clear on this point. We have now turned the corner on these issues. As the overwhelming support for the recent United States-
Jordan Free Trade Agreement makes clear, environment and labor standards are now a part of the trade dialog. They are here. We passed it; that is, we passed legislation which affirms it.
Finally, I want to express my strong support for Taiwan's accession into the WTO--as a full member of the WTO. This includes the right to challenge the trade practices of China--or any other country--just as other members have the right to challenge Taiwan.
I am concerned about some of the recent reports that China is advocating some kind of lesser status for Taiwan. As an independent member of the WTO, Taiwan should have, and will have, the same rights as every other member. I hope the administration will take a strong stand in this regard.
As we look toward and beyond Doha, I look forward to working with the administration. But I also urge our negotiators not to give up the store. The goal of launching a new round of negotiations is not an end in itself. We must be vigilant in ensuring that we get the best deal for our farmers, our workers, and our companies.
____________________
