PACIFIC BASIN ECONOMIC COUNCIL
MAIN PAGE | SPEECHES & EDITORIALS | 1999 | BIPARTISAN COALITION FOR OPEN TRADE

We Can and Must Restore the Bipartisan Coalition for Open Trade United States Representative Philip M. Crane (R-IL) Chairman, Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee United States House of Representatives Thursday, February 11, 1999 Summary of Remarks as Prepared for: International Economy in Crisis: Options for Sustaining Growth and Stimulating Recovery 1999 Annual Policy Conference I have developed a strong trade agenda for the 106th Congress. Already, on Tuesday, the House passed by a vote of 414-1 a series of miscellaneous trade provisions which will provide more opportunities for U.S. firms and their workers, get cheaper drugs to those suffering from AIDS and cancer, and improve customs services for travelers. I hope that the Senate acts quickly. My highest priority is getting a renewal of trade negotiating authority. As you know, we cannot be successful without the President's energetic efforts. The President and Ambassador Barshefsky said last year that they would work to build bipartisan support for enactment of fast track legislation early this year. So far, however, no Administration official has contacted me to begin that dialogue. We will not pass fast track legislation in the House without full support from the White House, and they know that better than anyone. Later this afternoon, at my Subcommittee hearing on the trade agenda, I will ask the Ambassador to provide me with dates certain for a White House plan on fast track, and encourage them to deliver on the President's vow in the State of the Union on bipartisan trade legislation. Administration officials and others have spoken about "renewing the consensus on trade." I am prepared to discuss with the Administration any specific ways in which it believes that my fast track bill, which the Administration agreed to in 1997, is somehow deficient. I hope that opponents to fast track will not try to kill our efforts by making vague, unspecified references to the need for”improvements" in the bill. I call today on any critics to show me precisely where they believe my bill falls short. I am happy to begin a dialogue, but I caution that our approach must continue to be balanced and attractive to Republicans as well as Democrats. Our bill actually contains a number of protections on labor and the environment, including a specific prohibition on countries stepping away from their existing laws to attract investment. This critical provision avoids the”race to the bottom" that many fear. While we are working to renew fast track, we must continue to develop a positive trade agenda. My Subcommittee will hold a series of hearings, beginning later today, to focus our attention on what we stand to gain, in terms of opening markets to our goods and services and reducing foreign protectionism, by participating in trade negotiations. The WTO, APEC, and the FTAA all provide the United States with important opportunities. In particular, the WTO Seattle Ministerial is our chance to show the world how we foresee the next set of negotiations, particularly in the areas of agriculture, services, and industrial tariffs. We will help the Administration develop its priorities for these negotiations. In addition, I am interested in concluding FTA agreements with Chile, as well as countries in the Asia-Pacific region, such as New Zealand, Australia, and Singapore. Trade with sub-Saharan Africa is another important priority. My Subcommittee has already reported out this legislation with a bipartisan 14-0 vote. I also hope to pass CBI parity legislation. We must do everything possible to assure that these bills provide meaningful benefits to citizens in those regions, while providing markets for our goods and services. We must also fights efforts to increase protectionism here at home. We must resist the urge to strike out at our trading partners by erecting barriers to trade which violate the WTO or which give the bad example that it is appropriate to close markets when imports increase. Let us enforce our trade laws to their utmost, but let us be wary of creating a dangerous chain reaction of protectionism. Particularly on the issue of steel, I'd note that while we are all sympathetic to the situation of the domestic steel industry, I would echo the comments of Secretary Rubin when he testified before the Ways and Means Committee last Thursday. He said that the Administration remains wary of making what could be construed as a protectionist move since the world economy remains shaky. I intend to have a hearing in my Subcommittee shortly to analyze this issue. We will have to deal with the issue of Normal Trade Relations for China again this year. We must continue our policy of engagement. I hope that we are able to conclude an agreement with China allowing it to accede to the WTO, but I caution that it must be a commercially acceptable deal which the Chinese can fully and fairly implement. To do otherwise would relegate us to years of futile litigation. This year is the fifth anniversary of the NAFTA implementation. The opponents of open trade policy often use NAFTA as their bogeyman. The data, however, is clear -- more net jobs after five years of NAFTA, more economic activity in the U.S., our economy growing each year. Listen to the words of Vice President Gore when he debated Ross Perot about NAFTA in 1993: "You give us the opportunity to sell our products unimpeded, without these trade barriers that we've been having to deal with -- we'll knock the socks off the workers of any other country in the world." "The idea that we can isolate ourselves from the rest of the world and only do business with 'perfect' countries that do everything the way we want them to do is pretty unrealistic. We have to realize that we, unilaterally, cannot change the world. We can't force every country in the world that we want to trade with to meet our standards in everything that we would like to see them meet..." -- Vice President Gore, November, 1993, Gore-Perot Debate on NAFTA (Courtesy of Larry King Live, CNN) Vice President Gore was right to challenge Ross Perot and make the clear argument for free and fair trade. He clearly won that argument. Now if only Vice President Gore and President Clinton would commit themselves now, as they did then, we could pass fast track, as well as the Africa and CBI bills, and a whole host of trade agreements to open markets to our goods and services. They've proven they can do it, and today, I'm calling on them to rejoin the fight as we try to resist some of the most tempting protectionist pressures in the past few years.