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    

There is a price to pay for our delay in negotiating new trade agreements. For example,

[Page: H9018]  GPO's PDF

   American farmers and ranchers can't afford for us to stand by and watch the world write new trade rules. The United States needs to lead a new round of negotiations, and we need trade promotion authority to do it.

   I encourage my colleague to support the compromise bill today and you will be supporting American farmers and ranchers as well as other business men and women who have the capacity to strengthen our economy as well as their own livelihoods if they are just given the chance.

   With millions of jobs and billions of dollars at stake, we cannot afford to be partisan or cavalier with this vote. My hope is that this week we will produce not only a legislative victory on Trade Promotion Authority but also a blueprint for greater respect and improved working relations between the parties on substantive national policy.

   Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this bill.

   I believe in free trade and am philosophically opposed to protectionism. I am particularly sensitive to the economic challenges faced by the ``high technology'' sector of our economy, and believe that there was an opportunity to craft a bill that would have secured broad bipartisan support on trade. Unfortunately, this bill falls short of that bipartisan promise.

   The stakes on trade promotion authority--or ``fast track''--have changed, along with the global trade landscape. Easing barriers to trade no longer simply involves tariffs or quotas. In our increasingly globalized world, trade negotiations involve areas that used to be considered U.S. domestic law--from regulatory standards and antitrust laws to food safety and prescription drug patents, to name just a few.

   And because the trade landscape has changed, I--along with many of my colleagues--believe that the way in which we go about negotiating those trade agreements should be different than it has been in the past, when Congress agreed to limit its role in this important aspect of national policy.

   Now, even more than before, broad support is needed for any bill that would relinquish the authority of Congress to represent the nation by reviewing agreements or decisions reached by the Executive. If we are going to vote to reduce congressional review and give favorable treatment to trade agreements, we should at least provide that these agreements meet certain minimum standards. The stakes--for American workers and for the environment--are too high for us to do otherwise.

   In June of this year, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. CRANE introduced a fast-track bill that was roundly criticized as not providing a strong enough role for Congress and not addressing concerns about labor or environmental standards. As Ways and Means Chairman THOMAS prepared his revised legislation, many of my colleagues and I had hoped that he might have better understood that building a bipartisan consensus requires consultation of Members on both sides of the aisle. Only then could Chairman THOMAS's bill have correctly been named the ``Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act.''

   So I was disappointed when H.R. 3005 was introduced, as it was clear that Chairman THOMAS wasn't willing to work to gain broad support for his bill. In contrast, in my view, the version of the legislation introduced by Ways and Means Ranking Member RANGEL and Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member LEVIN would take important steps in the right direction and would provide a better foundation for developing sound legislation.

   But the rule under which this bill is being debated does not even provide for consideration of the Rangel-Levin bill as an alternative. Although the rule does make some slight improvements to the Thomas bill, the changes are too little and too late.

   It is incumbent on us in Congress to continue to work to update our trade policy to take account of this changed landscape. That means we need a trade promotion bill that includes a stronger role for Congress, and stronger environmental and labor provisions. The Thomas bill before us does not measure up, and I cannot support it.

   Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House of Representatives to reject this ``fast-track'' trade legislation--this bill will not meet our trade goals, and will hurt rather than help our needed economic recovery.

   Many industries, such as the U.S. steel industry, are being hard-hit by subsidized foreign imports, yet this bill does not require U.S. negotiators to seek wide protections such as the United States needs from such dumping by foreign countries in key areas such as steel, lumber, cement, and agriculture products.

   Moreover, this bill will not attack the key trade steps we need to take--rather, we need a revised U.S. trade policy that will eliminate the record-level trade deficit, protect U.S. jobs and the U.S. economy, and promote U.S. exports. This bill before the House of Representatives will only mean more U.S. jobs lost to overseas, subsidized manufacturers.

   The U.S. can compete with any nation in the world as long as the competition is fair, but this legislation will actually encourage other countries to avoid U.S. anti-dumping laws, and worsen rather than strengthen our economy. It also fails to strengthen overseas worker rights and require environmental progress.

   Yes, we need a revised U.S. trade policy, but we need one that protects U.S. jobs and stimulates economic growth. This bill does not reach that goal at all, and it should be rejected by the House of Representatives as a statement that we will stand-up for the U.S. economy and protect U.S. jobs rather than sending business and jobs overseas.

   Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3005, a bill to grant the President fast track trade negotiating authority. The bill before us today is weaker on labor and environmental language than the 1988 fast track bill used to negotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA ). As witnessed by the surge of imports and loss of millions of jobs since NAFTA's enactment, Congress must hold the President accountable for negotiating trade agreements that are stronger than that of NAFTA --not weaker.

   While gross U.S. exports rose 61.5% between 1994 and 2000, presumably as a result of NAFTA , imports rose by 80.5% over the same period resulting in over 3 million trade-related job losses. California led the states in job losses with over 300,000 jobs lost to NAFTA's explosion in imports. Proponents of the last fast track bill assured us that more jobs would be created than would be lost. Clearly, this is not the case. Now, Mr. THOMAS is asking Congress to support a bill that is weaker than the fast track language used to negotiate NAFTA . I warn my colleagues not to be fooled into believing that promises made to provide benefits in an economic stimulus package to workers who have recently lost their jobs, will come close to justly compensating the millions of workers who have already lost their high-paying manufacturing jobs. Nor will it suffice in protecting those who have yet to see unemployment from the trade negotiations that have yet to be signed.

   I want to make one thing clear: H.R. 3005 does not help U.S. workers. This bill is intended to protect and promote multinational investments. The bill neglects to provide any enforceable requirements that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) negotiate any of the five core International Labour Organization standards. We need USTR to negotiate an agreement that commits countries to implement and enforce in their domestic laws both the right to associate and bargain collectively, and prohibitions on child labor, compulsory labor and discrimination in hiring. When workers are not given these basic rights, they are exploited. This is what has happened with NAFTA . Workers in the U.S. are given these rights but this is not the case in Mexico. So rather than continue to pay a decent wage to a U.S. union worker, a factory owner can move the business to a country where there are no labor laws and labor costs are lower than in the U.S. Although Mexico has seen a significant increase in manufacturing with NAFTA , Mexican manufacturing workers have seen a 21% decrease in their wages. Mexico's burgeoning middle class has yet to materialize and the working poor have spiraled deeper into poverty. Clearly, the 1988 fast track negotiating authority hurt U.S. workers as much as it hurt Mexican workers. Congress must insist on stronger trade negotiating objectives to protect U.S. workers as well as the exploited workers around the globe. The Thomas proposal fails to do so.

   Under NAFTA's Chapter 11 , corporations have been given unprecedented immunity from domestic statute through global trade agreements. H.R. 3005 embraces NAFTA's Chapter 11 provisions, which vitiate U.S. statute in deference to foreign corporations. This has the consequences of hurting the environment as well as public safety. Intended as an investor protection measure, Chapter 11 allows foreign-based corporations to seek damages from governments that engage in protectionist behavior and interfere with corporations' abilities to fully realize anticipated profits.

   Californians have confronted the ludicrous protections Chapter 11 provides for investors while consumer safety and the environment are made to suffer. The Canadian-based Methanex Corporation has sued the U.S. under NAFTA's Chapter 11 provisions, because California's phase-out of the harmful gasoline additive, MTBE, has hurt the price of Methanex stock. MTBE contaminated California's drinking water due to underground gasoline storage tank leaks. Logically, California lawmakers have ordered the additive out of their gasoline, even if it means slightly higher gas prices at the pump. However, if the

[Page: H9019]  GPO's PDF

   The current fast track bill being considered does nothing to protect U.S. jobs, does nothing to protect the environment and does nothing to protect U.S. consumers. Until such issues are addressed in binding legislative language. I cannot support fast track trade negotiating authority. I encourage my colleagues to do join me and vote no on H.R. 3005.

   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we are asked today to grant the President so-called trade promotion authority, authority that has nothing to do with free trade. Proponents of this legislation claim to support free trade, but really they support government-managed trade that serves certain interests at the expense of others. True free trade occurs only in the absence of interference by government, that's why it's called ``free''--it's free of government taxes, quotas, or embargoes. The term ``free-trade agreement'' is an oxymoron. We don't need government agreements to have free trade; but we do need to get the federal government out of the way and unleash the tremendous energy of the American economy.

   Our founders understood the folly of trade agreements between nations; that is why they expressly granted the authority to regulate trade to Congress alone, separating it from the treaty-making power given to the President and Senate. This legislation clearly represents an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority to the President. Simply put, the Constitution does not permit international trade agreements. Neither Congress nor the President can set trade policies in concert with foreign governments or international bodies.

   The loss of national sovereignty inherent in government-managed trade cannot be overstated. If you don't like GATT, NAFTA , and the WTO, get ready for even more globalist intervention in our domestic affairs. As we enter into new international agreements, be prepared to have our labor, environmental, and tax laws increasingly dictated or at least influenced by international bodies. We've already seen this with our foreign sales corporation tax laws, which we changed solely to comply with a WTO ruling. Rest assured that TPA will accelerate the trend toward global government, with our Constitution fading into history.

   Congress can promote true free trade without violating the Constitution. We can lift the trade embargo against Cuba, end Jackson-Vanik restrictions on Kazakhstan, and repeal sanctions on Iran. These markets should be opened to American exporters, especially farmers. We can reduce our tariffs unilaterally--taxing American consumers hardly punishes foreign governments. We can unilaterally end the subsidies that international agreements purportedly seek to reduce. We can simply repeal protectionist barriers to trade, so-called NTB's, that stifle economic growth.

   Mr. Speaker, we are not promoting free trade today, but we are undermining our sovereignty and the constitutional separation of powers. We are avoiding the responsibilities with which our constituents have entrusted us. Remember, congressional authority we give up today will not be restored when less popular Presidents take office in the future. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote NO on TPA.

   Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, a vote in favor of Trade Promotion Authority today will be a vote in favor of U.S. workers, it will be a vote in favor of increased exports, and it will be a vote in favor of economic growth.

   This bill will have a positive effect on all aspects of the U.S. economy, not the least of which will be the services sector.

   Last year the U.S. exported $295 billion in services, compared to imports of $215 billion, leading to an $80 billion surplus in services trade.

   Between 1989 and 1999, 20.6 million new U.S. jobs were added to the economy in service related industries. These knowledge-based jobs account for 80% of the total private sector employment in the U.S.

   Today we have the opportunity to either expand this number by voting in favor of H.R. 3005, or to begin to erode these impressive figures by denying the President the tools he needs to negotiate strong free trade agreements.

   As Chairman of the Financial Services Committee I understand how important this bill is to maintain our competitiveness in the international arena. Earlier this year, the Committee held hearings in which representatives from the insurance, banking and securities industries testified that barriers to overseas markets will severely affect their ability to compete with foreign based financial service providers.

   Financial services firms contributed more than $750 billion to U.S. Gross domestic Product in 1999, nearly 8% of total GDP. Over 6 million employees support the products and services these firms offer. TPA will eliminate impediments to foreign markets and enable financial service providers to continue to act as the engine that drives economic growth.

   Approximately 80 percent of the world's GDP and half of the world's equity and debt markets are located outside the U.S. More than 96% of the world's population resides overseas, with India and China alone accounting for 2.3 billion people. Many of the best future growth opportunities lie in ``non-U.S.'' markets.

   If U.S. service providers cannot access these markets or operate on a level playing field overseas we will be left behind by foreign financial service providers.

   I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3005. Our workers need it, our exporters need it and our economy needs it.

   Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, trade promotion authority enhances the United States' ability to negotiate agreements that help American workers and businesses. Just as we can't repeal the laws of gravity, we can't ignore the fact that we live in a world with a global economy.

   It is estimated if global trade barriers could be cut by just one-third, the world economy would grow more than $600 billion each year. Talk about economic stimulus--this is it!

   Trade promotion authority will open new markets. Without this authority, trading partners will not put forth meaningful offers. Tariffs on American products won't be reduced, and our economy will grow at a much slower rate.

   Passing this bill signals to the world we are committed to global trade and free markets. It allows the United States to take a leadership role in building international trading systems based on American principles of market-based economics and fair play.

   Giving the President the authority to negotiate trade agreements is good for Connecticut, the United States and every country involved.

   Exports accounted for almost one quarter of all U.S. economic growth in the last 10 years. Trade promotion authority should pass without delay.

   Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this debate on ``Fast Track'' is not about whether or not the U.S. should be participating in the global economy--we all agree on that. This debate is about HOW we are going to participate in that economy.

   In this time of economic recession, I feel that we have responsibility to the American worker and the workers around the globe to ensure that American labor standards are enforced globally. It is unacceptable that American jobs are being shipped overseas to countries that refuse to pass or enforce minimal labor protections.

   As many of us can remember all too well, Fast Track Trade Authority was last used to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA ) in 1993. While the Administration claims that NAFTA is a resounding success, I contend that this is far from the truth.

   It is estimated that NAFTA has cost nearly 1 million U.S. manufacturing jobs and tens of thousands of family owned farms to go out of business. In my home state of New Jersey, alone, it is estimated by the U.S. Department of Labor that more than 20,000 jobs were directly lost due to NAFTA's scope.

   NAFTA has also been a disaster in the area of environment protection and public health. Since passage, pollution also in the U.S. Mexico border has created worsening environmental and public health threats in the area. Along the border, the occurrence of some environmental diseases, including hepatitis, is two or three times the national average, due to lack of sewage treatment and safe drinking water.

   This is unacceptable. In my mind, no matter what this Administration promises, Fast Track only causes the quality of life in America to be compromised.

   My friends--I say, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I urge my colleagues--don't be fooled again. We have already allowed the word of past Administrations cost thousands of American jobs and further destroy our environment. Let's not make the same mistake again.

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