[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 131 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1871]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E1871]]

       WHAT AMERICANS THINK ABOUT FAST TRACK AND NAFTA EXPANSION

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 26, 1997

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, it may surprise some of my colleagues that 
the majority of Americans believe labor and environmental issues should 
be negotiated as part of trade agreements. In fact, this isn't a 
majority of 51 percent, 55 percent, or even 60 percent. It is a vast 
majority of 73 percent. Seventy-three percent of Americans believe that 
protecting the environment and protecting labor rights should be 
integral part of trade agreements.
  I completely agree.
  Apparently, the administration does not. Unfortunately, the 
administration's fast-track proposal does not reflect the feelings of 
the vast majority of Americans. The administration's proposal falls far 
short. To be truthful, it's even a step backward from fast-track 
proposals under Reagan and Bush. Under the administration's proposal, 
the President would be forbidden from including labor, environmental, 
and other standards of the same enforceable, core nature as now are 
provided for the protection of intellectual property or investors' 
rights. The proposal isn't a bridge to the 21st century--it's slide 
back to the 19th century. There truly seems to be a disconnect with the 
administration and the American people.
  In my opinion, and that of the vast majority of Americans, fast-track 
legislation must include enforceable labor and environmental 
provisions. To do anything less would be shortchanging working families 
acrosss our country. It would further compromise our environment, the 
safety of our foods, the wages of American workers, and our overall 
quality of life.
  Where's the evidence? Well, we have 3 years' worth of evidence from 
NAFTA. It has been 3 years since this broken trade agreement went into 
effect, and the evidence is clear that NAFTA has failed for the 
American working man and woman. Our modest trade surplus with Mexico 
has ballooned into a huge deficit. We've lost hundred of thousands of 
jobs. Moreover, the evidence shows that the much ballyhooed labor and 
environmental side agreements in NAFTA are hugely ineffective. In the 
United States employers used NAFTA as a tool to fight unions and keep 
wages down. Companies effectively intimidate workers and stymie union 
organizing efforts by threatening to move jobs to Mexico. And the 
health of working families are threatened by increased industrial and 
toxic emissions and waste along the United States-Mexico border.
  NAFTA failed because it failed to protect workers' rights and the 
environment. It deeply concerns me that NAFTA protects intellectual 
property rights and investors' rights while it turns a blind eye to 
workers and the environment. There are more protections for compact 
discs and Wall Street financial investors than there are for the Smith 
family next door and our rivers and streams.
  We've seen what happens with a trade agreement that does not include 
adequate labor and environmental protections, and it certainly isn't 
pretty. Let us learn from it.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to carefully evaluate 
these vitally important trade issues in the coming weeks. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to carefully evaluate the impact of NAFTA expansions 
and fast-track legislation on American workers and American families. 
Let's listen to the American people.



                          ____________________