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    

Trade is also good for Maryland's entrepreneurs and small businesses. The number of Maryland companies exporting increased 51 percent from 1992 to 1998. This is significant;

[Page: H9022]  GPO's PDF

   Indeed, Maryland has benefited from previous trade agreements. For example, total exports from Maryland to NAFTA countries (Mexico and Canada) in 1999 were 56 percent higher than 1993, before NAFTA.

   This negotiating authority expired in 1994, and during that time other countries have been moving forward with trade agreements while the United States has been stalled. There are more than 130 preferential trade and investments agreements in the world today, and the United States is a party to only two.

   The European Union has free trade or special customs agreements with 27 countries, 20 of which it completed in the last 10 years. And the EU is negotiating another 15 accords right now. Our inaction hurts American businesses, farmers, ranchers, and workers as they find themselves shut out of the many preferential trade and investment opportunities.

   Mr. Speaker, I believe in free and fair trade and a strong economy. In times of growth our Nation has been able to move forward on important social issues and make the world a better place for all.

   Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the trade policy of the United States. We are scheduled to vote in the House of Representatives this week on approving Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), what used to be called ``Fast Track'' Authority. I will vote against it, as I did in 1998. I will do so for several reasons, but primarily because the United States has signed few effective trade pacts in recent memory. Since the early 1980s the United States has become the greatest debtor nation in the world, and that trade deficit continues to grow, with devastating impacts for the working men and women of this country. While corporate CEOs continue to earn record-breaking salaries, their employees face reduced wages and benefits or worse--they are laid off while their jobs are moved abroad. We continue to export good, high-paying American manufacturing jobs to places like Mexico and China, where workers are paid little and enjoy few protections from abuse.

   I agree that we need to create export markets for our goods, especially our agricultural products. To that end, I have voted to end the trade embargo against Cuba. However, this must be done on terms that are fair to the United States. The list of unfair reciprocal trade agreements we currently have with other countries boggles the mind. Our products are taxed at extremely high rates in those countries, while their products enter our markets virtually tax-free.

   The supporters of TPA will tell you that the President needs this authority to negotiate trade pacts, such as the next round of world trade talks that has been put in motion by the recently concluded conference in Doha, Qatar. But TPA is not necessary to negotiate trade pacts. In fact, TPA expired in 1994, and we have reached several bad agreements since then, notably terms to allow China to enter the World Trade Organization, a deal I also did not support. The only thing TPA guarantees is that Congress is shut out of the negotiating process, left to ratify whatever agreement the President negotiates. And when the time comes to vote, Congress is told that while this might not be the best deal, it is the only one on the table and that we cannot waste the years it took to reach it by it voting down. It is a vicious cycle that imprisons American workers, and I will not vote to revive it.

   The North American Free Trade Agreement is a good example of this process. Eight years ago, the passage of NAFTA brought many promises: 200,000 new jobs annually in the United States; higher wages for Mexican workers; an increased trade surplus with Mexico and a cleaner environment and improved health in the boarder regions. In fact, the opposite has happened--none of these promises have materialized.

   Supporters of NAFTA promised great things for America's trade surplus with Mexico and Canada. These, too, have failed to materialize. While gross exports to NAFTA countries have increase dramatically--147 percent to Mexico and 66 percent to Canada--imports from these countries have increased more dramatically. U.S. imports have increased 248 percent from Mexico and 79 percent from Canada. The trade deficit with Mexico and Canada was nine billion dollars in 1993; by 2000, it had ballooned to $60 billion. NAFTA was supposed to reduce these numbers. Instead, the trade deficit has increased.

   Instead of creating 1.6 million jobs over eight years, NAFTA has eliminated 766,000 jobs. In my home state of Illinois, over 37,000 people have lost their jobs as a result of NAFTA. These were the good paying manufacturing jobs I referenced above. Most of these jobs have been relocated to Mexico, where the labor and environmental standards are lower than in America.

   Even if American jobs were not relocated to Mexico and elsewhere, many companies have leveled this threat at their employees. Workers are told if they do not agree to the company's terms, their jobs will go to Mexico. As a result, workers settle for contracts with lower wages and fewer benefits in collective bargaining. This occurred recently with the Tower Automotive

   plant in my congressional district. A recent newspaper article described it this way, ``Earlier this month, Tower Automotive has said in order to save money, it was subcontracting the Lincoln Aviator program to Metalsa, a company in Monterey, Mexico.'' Fortunately, Tower Automotive decided to stay in the U.S., but the threat to move remains as an option for Tower and other businesses.

   Since the enactment of NAFTA, wages for industrial workers in the United States have decreased. These workers comprise 73% of our nation's industrial workforce and account for most of our middle- and low-wage workers. When manufacturing jobs leave the country, displaced workers who can find work generally receive pay that is 13% less than they received in their previous job. These jobs are primarily in the service industry, where wages pay only 77% of those in the manufacturing sector. The jobs lost as a result of NAFTA were good paying jobs held by individuals who most likely do not have a college education. These workers have a harder time finding re-employment and need these jobs the most.

   The trade deficit is not only a problem of the rich getting richer and the poor poorer--it is a national security issue. Our nation is currently at war. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the U.S. military is engaged in military actions against the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Young Americans are putting their lives on the line every day to defend the values of this great nation. Does it make sense that while American troops are in harm's way, the U.S. is rapidly losing its ability to produce steel due to the flood of illegally imported steel ? If the current trend continues, we will not have a steel industry in the U.S., leaving our national defense vulnerable.

   In September, I testified before the International Trade Commission regarding the Section 201 investigation into U.S. steel imports. I represent the 12th Congressional District of Illinois, which includes Alton, Granite City, and other areas with great steel traditions. Sadly, Alton is no longer a steel town. Laclede Steel announced in July that it will shut its doors permanently, ending an 86-year history in Alton and throwing 550 employees out of work. The impact on the local economy has been severe. Of course, Laclede is not alone. Since 1997, 26 domestic mills have filed for bankruptcy. This trend must not be allowed to continue. The hardworking men and women of the United States and their families cannot bear the price of misguided foreign industrial policies any longer.

   However, the U.S. representatives at the Doha conference did not see it that way. Even after the House of Representatives passed a resolution requesting that the president preserve the ability of the U.S. to rigorously enforce its trade laws, particularly anti-dumping laws, the American representatives at Doha permitted the anti-dumping regulations to be re-examined. If allowed to happen, this will further damage American steel producers.

   So where does U.S. trade policy stand on the week of the vote to grant the president TPA? A record of unfair trade agreements that ignore worker rights and environmental protections, hundreds of thousands of good, high paying manufacturing jobs continuing to leave the country, and vital American interest left close to extinction. Not a pleasant picture.

   Mr. Speaker, given this bleak backdrop, I will not vote for TPA. It will minimize the role that Congress plays in trade agreements at a time when congressional oversight is needed most. The Bush administration has demonstrated by its action in Doha that it does not have the best interests of American workers in mind. Congress must work to ensure that more damage is not done. I urge my colleagues to join me in fighting for the American worker by opposing Trade Promotion Authority.

   Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 3005, the Trade Promotion Authority Act.

   Words probably cannot fully convey how disappointed I am in being forced to vote ``No'' on H.R. 3005. Up to now, since coming to Congress in 1993, I have compiled a pro-trade voting record that is second to none. I have supported NAFTA, U.S. entry into the WTO, normalizing trading relations with China and Vietnam, expanding trading relations with the countries of sub-Sahara Africa and the Carribean, and most recently to establish free trade with Jordan. I strongly believe that, our nation has the most to gain from opening new

[Page: H9023]  GPO's PDF

   I am also disappointed because I fully appreciate the extraordinary effort put forth by my friends, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. TANNER, and Mr. DOOLEY, in helping to craft this bill. Throughout this process, they were willing to listen to concerns that I and other members expressed. They performed admirably in pushing forward Democratic principles in negotiating this bill with the majority. Their steadfastness produced a great deal of progress in addressing concerns on how trade impacts labor and the environment and in addressing the plight of recently displaced workers.

   The majority has represented enactment of trade promotion authority as economic stimulus that will help pull the nation out of the current recession. I also recall the Administration representing this bill as something we must pass in the context of our war against terrorism. I don't doubt that expanding trade is in the national interest, but both of those arguments are exaggerated and misplaced. Trade does create better jobs for American workers that pay higher wages and add more to the economy. However, trade's benefits manifest themselves over the long-term; passing this bill will have very little effect on pulling the economy out of the current recession.

   It is in the context of this recession and the September 11 tragedy that I have weighed my vote on trade promotion authority. Passing trade authority may well be in our national interest, but over the short term, it will not do anything except add to the anxiety that workers who have been or are on the verge of being laid off are experiencing now. Conscience dictates that before I support granting trade promotion, I must ensure that their immediate needs and concerns are addressed. I have concluded that Congress and the Administration has fallen well short of what we must do in this area, and for this reasons, I must vote against H.R. 3005.

   On September 21, we passed a bill to provide immediate financial assistance to the airline industry in the wake of the September 11 tragedy. Some of my colleagues objected on the grounds that we should provide assistance contemporaneously to the workers laid off by the airlines. I supported that bill because I understood that maintaining the viability of the airline industry was necessary to preserve the jobs of those who were not laid off. I was also assuaged by assurances that we would have a bill on the floor the following week to provide assistance to airline workers. That promise was not kept.

   September 11 also exacerbated the recession that the country has apparently been experiencing since Spring. Following the tragedy, there was bipartisan agreement that Congress should pass an economic stimulus package to speed recovery and to provide broad safety net assistance to workers affected by the recession. Instead, the majority rammed through the House a tax package providing tax breaks on offshore profits, accelerated capital gains, and retroactively repealing a provision in the tax code that ensures that corporations are not able to wholly avoid paying taxes. At the same time, the bill provided a minimal level of unemployment and health care assistance to laid off workers. Besides not bringing our country out of recession, the bill was essentially a slap in the fact to working class Americans.

   Now, we are on the verge of voting on H.R. 3005. Several weeks ago, I indicated to its principal supporters that in order to attract my support, I would have to witness real progress on helping displaced workers, and not just vague promises and commitments. In response, Chairman THOMAS unveiled several new items. Principal among them is a provision in the TAA bill to provide $2 billion over 2 years for workers affected by the September 11 attacks. The Chairman also signaled his intention to offer proposals relating to health insurance and extension of unemployment benefits in the context of the ongoing negotiations with the Senate over the stimulus package. I appreciate Chairman THOMAS' good faith efforts, particularly his willingness to include a provision to suspend federal income taxes on unemployment benefits. This is actually a bill that I personally introduced earlier this Congress.

   These proposals fall short of what I would like but they do appear to be substantial progress. Unfortunately, since they do come at the last minute, there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding whether this is enough. Furthermore, the bulk of these proposals would need to be included in a final stimulus package, in which negotiations are ongoing over contentious issues. I am basically being asked to trust that these proposals will be improved upon where necessary and enacted into law, in spite of the fact that we have had months to do complete work on these items.

   I have concluded that I owe it to working class Americans that I should not simply take a leap of faith. For too long, they have been suffering while Congress has sat on its hands. I do not think it is unreasonable for us to wait on passing TPA legislation until we have passed legislation to help the unemployed.

   I am fully willing to revisit this issue if, later in this Congress, we do in fact provide the relief that displaced workers deserve. Today, however, my vote is ``no.''

   Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3005, the Fast Track Trade Authority bill.

   The President has requested Fast Track Trade Authority whereby Congress agrees to consider trade agreements without amendment and with limited debate. The administration says that unless we pass this bill, it will not be able to finalize a new round of worldwide trade talks or complete smaller trade deals.

   This is simply not true. Without Fast Track Trade Authority, the Clinton administration negotiated more than 300 trade agreements. President Bush has finalized the Vietnam-U.S. Bilateral Trade Agreement and begun work on the Free Trade Agreement of the Americaas.

   Denying Fast Track Trade Authority at this time will not hinder the president's ability to negotiate large multi-national trade agreements. The World Trade Organization will not finalize the next round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) for at least another five years.

   Fast Track Trade Authority is actually a tool to aid powerful corporations searching the globe for cheap labor by ignoring basic workers' rights, environmental safeguards, enforceable sanctions, and Congressional input.

   H.R. 3005 includes negotiating objectives promoting worker rights, yet these objectives are hollow. The bill relies on the self-enforcement of a country's worker rights laws.

   This bill does not require trade agreements with clear provisions to protect workers' rights. It does not require countries to agree to adhere to the International Labor Organization's core labor standards, including bans on child and slave labor.

   American needs trade agreements that instantly go before a dispute settlement panel if a country violates internationally recognized labor standards, such as the right to collective bargaining. All trade agreements need enforcement provisions which allow for prompt and full compliance with a dispute settlement panel's decisions.

   Proponents of Fast Track Trade Authority believe that the Trade Adjustment Assistance program we reauthorized today will assist individuals who will lose their jobs to future trade agreements. Workers who lost their jobs to NAFTA will vouch that this program cannot replace their jobs and does not provide the health benefits that they desperately need while looking for new jobs. All of us want to help workers and should support this program, but the reauthorization does not overcome the weaknesses of Fast Track Trade Authority.

   H.R. 3005 states that environmental concerns are a negotiating objective of trade agreements, but it only requires consultative mechanisms for strengthening trading partner's environmental and human health standards.

   The Thomas fast-track bill will expand controversial ``investor'' rules that empower foreign corporations to sue over environmental laws if laws, regulations, or court orders interfere in any way with a company's ability to do business.

   H.R. 3005 requires the president to consult with Congressional committees and prepare reports about child labor and the effectiveness of enforcing workers rights. These provisions do not give Congress the power to ensure that trade agreements conform to basic international labor provisions and environmental policies.

   With the economy in a recession and 7.7 million unemployed Americans looking for work, we cannot expose working families to unfair trade agreements that allow corporations to move into countries with weak labor standards.

<<<

>>>

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