|
The Administration strongly supports the enactment of S.J.Res. 5, which would
authorize the appointment of Charlene Barshefsky as the United States Trade
Representative.
When the Senate considers S.J.Res. 5, Senator Hollings' amendment relating to
the President's long-standing authority to carry out trade agreements may also
be considered. The Administration strongly opposes the Hollings
amendment, which would effect a major change in trade agreement implementing
procedures with immediate and harmful effects on U.S. consumers, firms, and
workers. The Hollings amendment would hinder, delay, and, in some cases,
jeopardize agreements that greatly serve the Nation's interests.
Harmful Effects of the Hollings Amendment
The Hollings amendment could require congressional approval of every trade
agreement that might be construed to require a change in U.S. law. The
amendment is unnecessary to assure that the Executive Branch is conforming to
congressional mandates on trade negotiations, is overly burdensome for both the
President and the Congress, and could endanger the benefits to the United
States of some trade agreements.
The overwhelming majority of trade agreements that the President concludes can
be -- and traditionally have been -- implemented under existing statutes. If
the authority to implement an agreement does not already exist, then the
President must seek that authority. If the President were to implement an
agreement in a manner that is not authorized by law, the courts can strike down
such actions. If the Congress disagrees with a trade agreement, it can pass
legislation directing the President to implement the agreement in a particular
way or to refrain entirely from implementing that agreement. If a trade
agreement requires a change in statutory law, Congress alone has the authority
to make such a change. The Hollings amendment is unnecessary to clarify this
point.
However, the Hollings amendment goes much further, and the absence of hearings
has precluded a full opportunity to determine precisely what the implications
of the amendment are. By requiring Congressional action whenever a trade
agreement would "in effect" change U.S. law, the Hollings amendment could
impose long delays on implementing trade agreements that would otherwise bring
immediate benefits to U.S. consumers, firms, and workers. Moreover, the vague
term "in effect" would cause great uncertainty, since the amendment leaves
undefined who determines when an agreement "in effect" requires a change in
law and what implications arise for implementing changes in regulation or
administrative practice called for in trade agreements.
The burdensome character of the amendment becomes clear when one considers that
the Administration concluded approximately 200 trade agreements in the last
four years. Under the Hollings amendment, any such agreement that occasioned
any change in law, including technical and typically non-controversial changes
to our tariff schedule, would have to be approved by the Congress.
The prospect of nearly continuous consideration of trade agreements by the
Congress also raises the possibility of delaying the entry into force of
agreements beneficial to the United States. For example, the Hollings
amendment could greatly delay -- and perhaps jeopardize -- recent agreements
that:
- eliminate tariffs on 400 pharmaceutical products shipped to key markets
around the world (these tariff cuts had been widely sought by our medical
community because of their potential to quickly lower the costs of producing
anti-AIDS drugs and other life-saving pharmaceuticals);
- cut $5 billion in global tariffs on semiconductors, computers,
telecommunications equipment, software, and other information equipment (these
are tariff cuts that directly benefit high-technology products made by some of
our most highly competitive industries, and that support 1.5 million
manufacturing jobs and 1.8 million related services jobs); and
- open the global market for basic telecommunication services, providing
enormous benefits to our dynamic U.S. telecommunications industry.
If the Hollings amendment were applied to these agreements, they would have to
be submitted to Congress for review and approval. Yet each of these agreements
was negotiated under congressional authorization and in close consultation with
Congress, and each enjoys overwhelming industry support.
|
