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
These conditions hit too close to home for my constituents. In my home state of Illinois, the fourth-largest economy in the union, economic activity has fallen for seven straight months. Output at factories in the Chicago area has contracted for 14 straight months. Last month, a Clorox plant in my district closed and laid off 95 workers. Furthermore, a 3M tape production facility announced it would be shutting down as well, displacing 270 hard-
[Page: H9016] GPO's PDF
Mr. Speaker, given a fair environment, our workers will out-perform any competitors. But we cannot compete with countries that subjugate their environment and pay their workers 90 cents per day. Now, in the midst of a recession, we are asked to vote to further these problems. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3005. Now is definitely not the time for fast track authority.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice strong support for free and fair trade but also my opposition to the Representative THOMAS' Fast-Track bill. As a cofounder and a current leader of the New Democrats, I am dedicated to finding new and innovative approaches to expanding our trade opportunities. Over the course of my six terms in Congress, I have demonstrated a strong record on free trade by voting for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, the Caribbean Basin Initiative (BCI), Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China (PNTR), and most recently the Andean Trade Promotion Act.
The global landscape for trade among nations continues to grow in complexity, however, as more nations enter the international market to trade goods and services. Just as we advocate more efficient, fiscally responsible government that encourages economic growth, so must we support free and fair trade agreements that recognize the challenges faced by American workers in the age of globalization. The opportunity exists for the United States to act as a world leader by enacting strong trade provisions that protect the American worker and the environment. The Thomas bill missed this opportunity by failing to enact meaningful labor and environmental standards.
If you look at past free trade negotiations leading up to the Doha Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization last month, the incremental increase in complexity and detail involved in trade negotiations is striking. In 1979, the Tokyo Round Agreement included only six areas for negotiation. Some of these issued areas included tariff levels, government procurement, and technical product standards. In 1994, the Uruguay Round negotiations integrated upwards of sixteen areas for trade negotiation including new issues such as intellectual property rights and trade in agriculture. In November 2001, the Doha Ministerial WTO Negotiations included upwards of 26 areas for debate. Among the issues open for negotiation were anti-trust laws, electronic commerce, and product labeling to name a few.
As trade negotiations between nations involve more issues, there is absolutely no excuse to exclude new compliance standards regarding labor and the environment. This is the time for the United States to take the lead to ensure that American jobs are protected at home and that human rights laws are enforced by our trading partners.
The Thomas bill falls well short of a guarantee for strong labor standards. By merely requiring a country to enforce its own existing labor laws, the Thomas bill provides no U.S. leadership on the treatment of the world's laborers. In fact, the five core International Labor Organization (ILO) standards are not even enforced. A commitment to principles like opposition to forced labor and child labor should be non-negotiable priorities of any future trade deals. The Fast-Track proposal does not require that our trade partners agree to these basic standards. Furthermore, an incentive must be in place for our trading partners to achieve fair and responsible labor standards and under the Thomas bill this will not happen.
The Thomas bill falls short of any meaningful protections for the environment, as well. Because only voluntary negotiating objectives are in place, trading partners can lower their environmental standards to gain unfair trade advantages. Furthermore, the Thomas bill does not block foreign investors lawsuits from challenging domestice environmental laws.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, during these times of uncertainty brought about by the war on terrorism and an apparent economic slowdown, we must heed the challenge to think anew when it comes to U.S. Trade Policy. We must balance our commitment to trading our goods and services abroad while also ensuring the protection and well-being of our workers. The Thomas bill is unbalanced and would represent a step backwards in our pursuit for free and fair trade.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the diligent efforts of the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. THOMAS, my colleagues and their staff members in drafting and sponsoring H.R. 3005, the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2001.
This measure has been referred to as the most environmentally and labor responsive legislation regarding Trade Promotion Authority (i.e. Fast Track) to be sponsored by the Congress. However, I share the concerns raised by my constituents in that H.R. 3005's labor and environmental standards do not go far enough to ensure a level playing field in trade agreements. H.R. 3005 refers to environmental and labor provisions as negotiating objectives. Nevertheless, our trade history reveals that during the past 25 years including labor rights, and now environmental rights, as ``negotiating objectives'' do not guarantee that these provisions will actually be included in trade agreements. The geopolitical and trade landscape has changed. Of the 142 members comprising the World Trade Organization (WTO), 100 are classified as developing nations and 30 are referred to as lesser-developed nations. Why is this important? It is important because with China's accession into the WTO, those 130 nations will then become more forceful in promoting their own trade agendas. What H.R. 3005 does is create an incentive for a nation to create a more favorable trade agreement for itself by lowering its environmental and labor standards. At best, many of these nations' labor and environmental standards are substandard.
As drafted, the overall negotiating objective of H.R. 3005 is to promote respect for worker rights. My constituents are concerned that the worker rights provisions do not guarantee that ``core'' labor standards are included in the corpus of prospective trade agreements. By core labor standards, I refer to the International Labor Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work: freedom of association, the right to organize and for collective bargaining, and the rights to be free from child labor, forced labor and employment discrimination, which many people throughout the world are confronted with.
My constituents are troubled that H.R. 3005 does not require any signatory to an agreement to improve or even to maintain that its domestic laws comply with the standards of the International Labor Organization. Among H.R. 3005's principal objectives is a provision entitled labor and the environment, which calls for the signatories to trade agreements to enforce their own environment and labor laws. Our nation as a leader in the global trade community must set the example by encouraging our prospective trading partners to raise their labor and environmental standards before we enter into any trade agreements with them. In the end, it will be the United States which is called upon to provide the resources to clean up environmental disasters and to bail out collapsed economies that failed as a result of substandard labor conditions.
Through their first-hand accounts, my constituents report that workers in many nations in which we seek to enter into bilateral and multilateral trade agreements are subjected to exploitation, harassment and worse for exercising their rights to collective bargaining, and are forced to work under harsh conditions. For example, in our own hemisphere more than 33 percent of the complaints filed with the International Labor Organization's Committee on Free Association originate in the Andean region. I understand that new labor laws in Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, and Peru undermine the right to collective bargaining, and there are scores of reports from NGO's regarding unconscionable violations of the most fundamental rights for workers and their union representatives. The AFL-CIO reports that since January 2001, more than 93 union members in Colombia have been murdered, while the perpetrators have gone unpunished.
How the United States engages in trade negotiations and its practices are crucial not only for our future, but for our democratic process. Since our Nation's conduct is scrutinized worldwide we should set the right example. Events during the recent World Trade Organization negotiations in Doha, Qatar have made this fact even more apparent. That organization is seeking to adopt a worldwide ``Investor-State Clause'' during its next round of discussions. This clause was written into Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA ) for the purpose of protecting businesses from expropriation by foreign governments. However, its application deviates from its original purpose of protecting signatories from expropriations.
NAFTA Chapter 11 cases such as Methanex v. United States, allow a foreign investor to sue a signatory government if their company's assets, including lost profits and other intangibles are damaged by our laws or regulations. The provisions of Chapter 11 call for an arbitration panel, which meets in secret, and its findings are not subject to public disclosure.
NAFTA's Chapter 11 standard of proof is much lower than what our own courts would require in a commercial case. The standard is whether the regulation illegitimately injured a company's investments and can be construed as an expropriation, which generally requires a physical taking of property or assets, even though in Chapter 11 cases no assets were physically taken. By virtue of this provision, our laws may be challenged in ways not foreseen by our Congress and in ways that are inconsistent with our own court's judicial interpretation, which are rendered irrelevant by
[Page: H9017] GPO's PDF
Mr. Speaker, we must seek out ways to make trade compatible with conservation of the environment and by adhering to core labor and environmental standards that are both incorporated into the body of a trade agreement and enforceable.
Accordingly, I am not able to support H.R. 3005.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2001. This important legislation will allow the United States to negotiate trade agreements in order to increase exports and stimulate our economic recovery here at home. It will also enable the President and Congress to work together to advance our interests around the world by guaranteeing Congress substantial participation in trade negotiations and allowing the President the authority to sign meaningful agreements.
Today's economy is dependent on global trade. Therefore, American businesses must have access to foreign markets. There must be a level playing field. Farmers throughout my state of Kansas depend on foreign markets to purchase significant portions of their crops and livestock. And in a time where productivity exceeds the ability of the domestic market to absorb current production levels, the need to create overseas customers is more important than ever. In fact, Agriculture must export one-third of its production because it is nearly three times more dependent on exports than other sectors.
Mr. Speaker, it's not just agriculture which benefits from free trade. Boeing, the largest exporter in the United States, sells more than half of its commercial planes to overseas customers. Last year, the company, which employs nearly 200,000 Americans, reported that one-third of its sales were to international customers.
Expanded trade has never been more important. Economists agree that America is in a recession and we must work to get our economy moving again, This is an opportunity to boost the economy by opening new markets.
This bill ultimately saves American consumers money, it increases American exports, it creates American jobs, and it guarantees that the United States will remain the world's economic leader.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, this has been a long day in a needlessly partisan fight.
I support Trade Promotion Authority and have voted for it in the past. The bill I voted for in 1998 is not as good as the text before us today.
I represent a trade-dependent district, and understand very well why trade helps our economy.
But context matters. Our country was in a serious economic recession before September 11 , and now faces enormous hardships just as the holiday season arrives. Forty-one thousand workers are out of jobs in the communities surrounding Los Angeles International Airport. Their airline and airport-affiliated jobs evaporated in the aftermath of 9-11 .
Workers first, Mr. Chairman. Those workers and those negatively impacted by September 11 and trade must be helped first before we pass TPA.
I support the package of worker benefits that the House leadership supports: $20 billion for unemployment, health insurance and worker training. The President has told me he supports it too.
My wish was that working together we could vote and pass it first as evidence that we would keep our promises to workers.
Sadly we didn't. Sadly I can't support TPA today until we do.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Trade Promotion Authority. As a lifelong supporter of improved trade opportunities for American producers, my inclination always is to begin with a favorable disposition toward trade bills which come before Congress. I am convinced that American producers can, and do, win with freer and fairer trade. Certainly, not every conceivable trade bill deserves support but, in general, I am strongly persuaded that increased trade opportunities improve the lives and pocketbooks of American workers. I also believe that enhanced trade is a potent mechanism for America to export our values, practices and democracy along with our products.
Unfortunately, early messages from the current administration forced me to question whether enhanced trade authority would be prudently used if granted this year. In particular, I was sorely disappointed by statements by the current Administration which made me doubt their understanding of both domestic and international farm policies and, particularly, the impact of those policies on the producers of our Nation's food and fiber. I am not going to be party to a unilateral disarmament of our farmers and ranchers for someone else's partisan philosophical reasons.
Furthermore, the early handling of this issue by both the Administration and the House leadership confirmed what has appeared to me throughout the year as legislative arrogance. While it may be numerically possible to pass bills with Republican-only votes, ultimately there is a price to be paid for this sort of shortsighted partisanship by either party. Successful trade legislation always has required bipartisan support; when the well of good will has been drained by earlier legislative battles fought entirely on partisan grounds, issues like trade arrive with inadequate troops supporting the effort.
All of that being said, I am reassured both by several conversations I personally have had and by those which have been reported to me from colleagues who share some of my concerns. As a naturally optimistic person, I am willing to hope that this experience might signal an awakening to political and legislative realities by some important players in both the executive and legislative branches.
With my chairman on the Agriculture Committee, I am supporting the trade promotion authority legislation before us today. I do believe that the enhanced congressional consultation and oversight in the current bill are vital for ensuring that our constituents' views and needs are respected by our trade negotiators. I highly commend this and other improvements made by my colleagues JOHN TANNER, BILL JEFFERSON, and CARL DOOLEY.
The truth about trade is that there always are both successes and failures, winners and losers. But for the Nation as a whole, trade is a net positive.
When it comes to agriculture, the successes have outweighed the failures. American farmers and ranchers now make a quarter of their sales to overseas markets; U.S. agriculture consistently enjoys a trade surplus; and next year agricultural exports are expected to reach $54.5 billion, producing a trade surplus of $14.5 billion. But that is just a fraction of what could be possible with freer and fairer markets.
According to the U.S. Trade Representative, NAFTA , and the Uruguay Round have resulted in higher incomes and lower prices for goods, with benefits amounting to $1,300 to $2,000 a year for an average American family of four, NAFTA has also produced a dramatic increase in trade between the United States and Mexico. In 1993, United States-Mexico trade totaled $81 billion. Last year, our trade hit $247 billion--nearly half a million dollars per minute.
U.S. exports to our NAFTA partners increased 104 percent between 1993 and 2000; U.S. trade with the rest of the world grew only half as fast.
Increased trade supports good jobs. In the five years following the implementation of NAFTA , employment grew 22 percent in Mexico, and generated 2.2 million jobs. In Canada, employment grew 10 percent, and generated 1.3 million jobs. And in the United States, employment grew more than 7 percent, and generated about 13 million jobs.
But as I said before, I acknowledge that there are those who do not win in the short run under certain trade situations. For workers who have lost in trade in the past, I also believe that the best--and perhaps only--way to fix what has failed is through new negotiations, which level the playing field. We must speak with a unified voice that is forged through a close partnership between Congress and the executive branches. That is envisioned in the compromise bill.
We in agriculture have only begun to reap the benefits of a half century of trade negotiations under GAIT and the WTO, which have reduced the average tariff on industrial goods to about 4 percent. That is a fraction if the 62 percent tariff that is imposed on our exports of agricultural products.
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