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
Currently, more than 134 trade agreements exist in the world and the United States is party to only two of them. Trade Promotion Authority would help the President open new markets to American products, knocking down unfair tariffs and foreign trade practices and preserving and creating more high-paying jobs
[Page: H9014] GPO's PDF
Expanded trade is needed now more than ever. In these tough economic times, American workers need work. This legislation will not only preserve jobs, but it will give our employers new markets to increase their business so they can put unemployed Americans back to work where they belong.
Economic studies show that a new World Trade Organization (WTO) round would produce enormous benefits for the United States. If the round reduced existing tariffs and all service barriers by one-third, it has the potential to add $177 billion to the U.S. economy. Removal of all trade barriers would add $537 billion to the U.S. economy, $450 billion of which would be from services.
Services and agricultural negotiations need to be re-energized by a successful new trade round. Nothing would assist American success in these talks, and continuing bilateral and multilateral negotiations, than the passage of Trade Promotion Authority. Without a new round, these negotiations will run out of steam, and our companies, economy, and job-creation potential will suffer.
Renewing TPA will show our trading partners that we have the political will to start and conclude serious negotiations. I urge my colleagues' support of H.R. 3005.
Small Business Exporters Association,
Washington, DC, December 5, 2001.
Rep. DON
MANZULLO,
House Small Business Committee, 2361 Rayburn House Office
Building, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR REP. MANZULLO: As the Chairman of the House Small Business Committee, you are one of Congress, most committed advocates of small business growth and prosperty. The Small Business Exporters Association urges you to act on that commitment tomorrow--by voting for Trade Promotion Authority for this and future Presidents.
This issue is sometimes seen as a struggle between the priorities of big business and big labor. It is anything but. As the nation's oldest and largest association dedicated exclusively to small and mid-size US exporters, SBEA is hearing loud and clear from its members that TPA may well make or break their ability to compete globally.
Though the number of small business exporters in the US has tripled, reaching more than 200,000, smaller exporters face huge new challenges, and our progress is at risk. The high cost of the dollar in foreign currencies and the worldwide economic softening have dealt serious blows to our ability to sell abroad.
We're also losing customers as free trade agreements spread around the world--without the US--and our products grow more expensive as a result.
Big businesses can deal with the high dollar and the free trade agreements by shifting production overseas. Small business can't. Price us out of a market and we're out. America loses the sales, jobs and economic growth.
The vote on TPA tomorrow will send a powerful signal--whether Congress intends to strengthen a strategic growth area of the American economy, or accentuate a downward economic spiral.
SBEA understands that compromises will be necessary in the months ahead. There are many interests affected by US trade agreements. We support those compromises. But a vote against TPA is not a vote for compromise. It is a vote to end the discussion.
We hope that you will stand with small business tomorrow.
Regards,
JAMES MORRISON.
--
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise not in opposition to free trade, or trade promotion authority. I come to the floor today to register my opposition to the form Chairman THOMAS and the Republican leadership have chosen H.R. 3005. For the ``Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2001'' is anything but, simply does not fully address the well founded concerns many Americans have about international trade policy.
Let me begin by stating that I am in favor of sensible, sustainable international trade. The United States is a major part of the global economy, and the health of this nation and its workers depends upon the ability of American producers and service providers to have access to markets to conduct business. It was Democratic President John F. Kennedy who stated, ``A rising tide lifts all boats.'' I firmly believe that in the case of international trade, this sentiment rings true, and that an economically stable world where every nation can aspire to a standard of living that reflects the elbow grease and ingenuity of its people is within our reach.
Mr. Speaker, I have genuine concerns about the current state of the global economy. Over the last two years economic slowdown has impacted the entire world. The Bush administration has finally acknowledged that not only are we in a recession, but that we have been a recession since March. The recent tragedies associated with September 11 and the U.S. Postal Service have shaken the confidence of this nation's workforce even more, and despite the thousands of jobs that have been lost, the families who have suffered the most from the sum total of events have been least on the agenda of the Republican Majority in this Congress.
My own district, Texas' 18th is a glaring example of the competition that exists between ensuring the stability of working families and adapting to the realities of the new global economy. Recently, the economic tide caught up with Enron, a major global employer in my district. Though I have every confidence in Houston to set the ship back on course, thousands of families will be the losers in the interim, and that weighs heavily on my mind.
International trade is vital to the health of my district. The Business Roundtable estimates that exports directly support 10,000 jobs in my district. Another 55,000 jobs with wholesalers and service providers either wholly or partially depend upon export sales. By the same token, though NAFTA has lead to a 100 percent increase in Texas exports to Canada and Mexico, this trade agreement has resulted in severe distress to America's steel industry. It has cost literally thousands of U.S. jobs and forced district manufacturers like Maas Flange to seek and obtain a remedy from the International Trade Commission.
Every Member here today can outline a similar set of tensions when determining the best course of action for their district. In the years since Trade Promotion Authority, or Fast Track, expired in 1994, we have had the opportunity to witness the need for free trade. We have also learned the reality that the trade rules can have a profound impact on labor forces as well as the local and global environments. As a legislator, I take seriously my constitutional obligations to balance these competing interests. Thus, I believe that any system of trade guidelines dispensed to the President should fully discharge our constitutional obligations and responsibilities to our respective districts.
H.R. 3005--railroaded through committee by Chairman THOMAS--does not strike this balance. At best, the legislation pays lip service to the concerns of the labor and environmental communities, and fails to substantively address the concerns of the American people that our trade policy be constitutionally sound.
To begin, H.R. 3005 does not require countries to implement any of the five core ILO standards; the right of association; the right to collective bargaining; bans on child labor; compulsory labor; or discrimination. H.R. 3005 requires only that a country enforce its existing law--whatever law that happens to be. Through proponents of the legislation claim that H.R. 3005 does require countries to consider labor standards, the bill constructs these core standards as mere ``general negotiating objectives.''
Thus, negotiation on, or implementation of, labor considerations in trade agreements enacted under this formula would not be subject to the economic realities of a global trade regime. Instead, they would be subject to the whims of the negotiators and their political agenda. The bill also requires countries to continue to enforce whichever labor standards they have, rather than recognizing the ILO conventions. Consequently, rather than ensuring that we foster positive labor standards with our trading partners in order to keep multinational corporations from exploiting foreign workforces to the detriment of their domestic workers, this bill would encourage it. No greater incentive to stabilize worker conditions around the world is contained in this bill, than in previous versions of Trade Promotion Authority that were voted down by this Body. Yet this bill is supposed to help create and keep American Jobs.
H.R. 3005 also falls severely short of incorporating the environmental externalities associated with international trade as a component part of the trade regime. This bill considers environmental objectives to be ``general negotiating objectives as well.
However, H.R. 3005 does not require any concrete action from U.S. negotiators. The bill requires only that the President ``consult'' with other countries and ``promote consideration'' of Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Thus, the bill contains no real assurances that the environment will be respected. H.R. 3005 would also allow greater rights for foreign investors in U.S. than U.S. firms due to its mimicry of NAFTA's chapter 11 rules regarding expropriation and takings, and it does not address key concerns raised under NAFTA investment rules that allow for the challenge of laws which are ``tantamount to expropriation.'' Last Minute changes to H.R. 3005 in this area are an indication of the flawed philosophy behind the Thomas legislation; the Leadership has paid too little attention too late in this process to convince this Body that labor and the environment are legislative priorities of U.S. international trade, and they should be.
Finally, this bill does not fully discharge Congress' Constitutional obligations regarding U.S. trade. Simply put, H.R. 3005 includes no effective mechanism for congressional participation in developing international trade. The
[Page: H9015] GPO's PDF
The Leadership of this House has made a mistake with this legislation. Recent trade agreements with Jordan and the Andean countries prove that Congressional priorities and international trade can be reconciled. Thus, to send a bill to the floor which does not ensure that the recent trends in U.S. Law are respected is an irresponsible way to conduct trade policy. As such, despite my support of free trade, I cannot support the trade regime fostered by this legislation.
Only H.R. 3019 fosters trade in a manner that considers its effects on workforces, the environment, our national sovereignty, and our constitutional obligations as members of Congress. The bill makes international labor standards a specific negotiating objective of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and it requires the creation of a Working Group on Trade and Labor within the WTO. H.R. 3019 also provides a real mechanism for members of Congress to play an ongoing role in this increasingly important sector by structuring a review process of ongoing negotiations and increasing congressional oversight of negotiating objectives.
International trade is vital to the people of the 18th district of Texas. So too are their jobs, the environment, and the freedom of our nation. It is our mandate as legislators to balance these interests for the good of our nation. The H.R. 3005 version of trade promotion authority does not do this, and I therefore cannot support it. By putting politics before policy, the Republican leadership has ruined an opportunity to ``lift all boats,'' for only the H.R. 3019 version of Trade Promotion Authority has the opportunity to ride a ``rising tide'' of support to passage.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3005, the ``Fast Track'' Trade Promotion Authority bill and in support of the Rangel substitute in the motion to recommit.
As a member of this House and as a member of the California Assembly prior to my election to the House, I have been a long-time supporter of free trade policies. As a Californian, I understand very well the many advantages that come from open markets, the lowering of tariffs, and the elimination of other trade barriers that prevent American products from competing on a level playing field in overseas markets.
American workers are the most productive workers in the world, and consumers around the world desire quality American products. I strongly believe that given a level playing field, American companies will thrive in overseas markets.
I am also well aware of the value of open markets to American consumers. Americans are shrewd consumers. Their open-minded attitude in considering and purchasing quality goods produced in other countries instills competition in both American and foreign companies which, in turn, lowers prices for American families and increases their real income.
Knowing the many benefits of increased trade between the U.S. and other countries, I voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA ), and for many years, I have supported legislation to increase trade, such as ``most favored nation'' status for China. I did so because of promises made to address the negative impacts of free trade agreements on U.S. workers and industries. However, once the trade agreement passed these promises were ignored and forgotten.
Since the passage of NAFTA , on numerous occasions, I have loudly voiced my concerns to Cabinet officials and trade negotiators about the necessity to live up to the promises to help displaced workers.
One such promise was the establishment of the Community Adjustment and Investment Program--CAIP--which was intended to provide financial assistance for American companies located in NAFTA trade-affected areas. In practice however, CAIP did little to help these companies. In fact, CAIP was never of any assistance to the garment industry located in my district, which experienced enormous job losses after the passage of NAFTA . CAIP's overly stringent eligibility requirements completely overlooked textile manufacturing companies too small to qualify or who did not meet the job loss threshold requirements. This essentially makes the CAIP program meaningless and ineffective.
Meanwhile, last year the Los Angeles Times reported that employment in the Los Angeles garment trade dipped below 100,000 for the first time since NAFTA was enacted in 1994, with nearly 13,000 jobs lost since 1997 alone. The jobs lost have almost exclusively been blue-collar sewing jobs.
Knowing that adequate and appropriate safeguards are not currently in place to help our nation's displaced workers, I cannot support extending Trade Promotion Authority to the President. I also cannot support this bill, because it does not sufficiently address my growing concerns regarding issues of labor standards, environmental protections, and congressional oversight on trade negotiations.
I regret that the Rules Committee has recommended a closed rule on this bill specifically blocking Democrats from offering amendments to address the concerns regarding this bill.
However, while I will oppose the Thomas bill, I will support the Rangel substitute in the motion to recommit. The Rangel bill includes provisions that address many of my concerns about labor rights, environmental protections, and congressional review. First, the Rangel substitute sets out clear negotiating objectives for labor standards. The Rangel substitute forbids slave labor, and
outlines strict rules on the use of child labor, and on the freedom of workers to associate and bargain collectively. The Thomas bill, in contrast, has no requirement that a country's laws include any of the five core International Labor Organization standards.
Second, the Rangel substitute sets out clear negotiating objectives for environmental standards. The Rangel substitute would commit countries to enforcing their own national environmental laws and prevent them from waiving existing standards for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage. The Thomas bill does little to ensure that environmental rules established by Multilateral Environmental Agreements have equal status to other provisions of trade agreements.
Third, the Rangel bill ensures a continuing and active role for Congress in setting U.S. trade policy. It does this by replacing the ineffective mechanisms included in the 1988 ``fast track'' law with a procedure for structured biennial review of ongoing trade negotiations subject to fast track. It also gives Congress an opportunity to pass a resolution of disapproval if the U.S. decides to inaugurate a new regional or multilateral trade negotiation. The Rangel bill helps to ensure that Congress is an active participant in important negotiations. The Thomas bill's approach is to view Congress as an occasional consultant.
In short, although it is not perfect, I believe the Rangel substitute addresses most of the legitimate concerns that have been raised about the negotiation of free-trade agreements.
Free trade agreements and free trade policies are desirable goals, but we should never forget that they also impact many Americans adversely. By requiring implementation of labor and environmental standards, together with the active involvement of Members of Congress both Republican and Democratic administrations are likely to construct trade policies consistent with our principles as a society.
The Rangel substitute is the best vehicle for achieving this goal. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit and oppose the Thomas bill.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, trade is clearly an important component of our national economy. Accordingly, I strongly support fair trade laws that ensure a competitive foundation for American exports by promoting American values. Fair trade laws ensure that workers and the environment do not get exploited for shortsighted profits; free and unfettered trade agreements trade away American jobs. The language in H.R. 3005 provides hollow promises to the environment and American workers. For years, supporters of these agreements have argued that trade is the cure-all for the American economy. To the contrary, the U.S. economy has been struggling for some time now, and we have empty trade accords to thank for it. We simply cannot have free trade at any cost.
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