[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 140 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8813-H8817]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAST TRACK LEGISLATION AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA'S TRADE AGREEMENTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks on fast track
legislation this evening, let me congratulate the Fighting Elephants in
their victory over the Dunking Donkeys last night in the congressional
basketball game. It is a biannual game that we have at Galaudet
University, which is the national university for the deaf and hearing
impaired. We raise money for that school, and we thank all those on the
staff of the Congress and Members who came out. We had over 40 Members
participate.
We also thank the Speaker for his participation and for the singing
of the National Anthem with the Capital Four. It was a wonderful part
of the evening.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk today about fast track. Last spring a
little girl from Michigan, named Lindsay Doneth, was rushed to a
hospital with a fever of 103. Her lips were bleeding, she was nauseous
and she had sharp pains. As Lindsay screamed in agony, her mom and dad
sat by her hospital bed unsure whether their 10-year-old would live or
die.
Doctors said Lindsay had contracted hepatitis, a potentially deadly
blood disorder. And she was not alone. Area hospitals were being
flooded with her classmates from Madison Elementary School.
Fortunately, Lindsay and the other students survived the outbreak.
Today she and her classmates are back in class. As it turns out, all
179 of them had eaten contaminated Mexican strawberries in the school
cafeteria.
Now, I tell this story today because it relates directly to the most
important issue Congress is now debating: Fast track and the future of
America's trade agreements.
Now, some might ask, well, what is the connection here? What do
Mexican strawberries and sick children in Michigan have to do with our
Nation's trade policies? Absolutely everything. Every day some 10,000
Mexican trucks line up in the sweltering heat waiting to cross into the
United States, honking their horns as the traffic barely crawls
forward. I have seen it down on the border.
Overburdened customs inspectors have to wave most of them through
because they only have time to check about 1 percent. They call this
the wave line down there. They just send the trucks on through. So how
many go without inspection? More than 3 million trucks a year. Three
million.
Unfortunately, under the NAFTA agreement that was signed into law
almost 4 years ago, it prevents us from increasing inspections at the
border. Under section 717 of that agreement, searching more diligently
for pesticides, toxins, parasites and infectious disease could be
considered a constraint, or I should say a restraint of trade.
And it is not just tainted food that is slipping into the country.
According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, 70 percent of the cocaine
entering the United States now rolls across the Mexican border. One
former DEA official called NAFTA, and I quote him, a deal made in narco
heaven.
Now, I know that some of my colleagues are thinking to themselves and
saying, ``There goes David Bonior again, attacking NAFTA.'' And it is
true I have attacked NAFTA over the years, and for good reason, but my
remarks this evening are primarily about the future and about how we
can avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.
I bring the case of Lindsay Doneth and the contaminated strawberries
only because it raises a critical issue in this debate on fast track.
Will the trade deals we negotiate promote rising living standards at
home and abroad or will they lead to a downward spiral of dangerous
food, of dirtier environment, and of lower wages and benefits?
Let me emphasize here that I believe cultivating healthy trade
relationships is critical to America's future. But our prosperity will
depend not just on the quantity but the quality of that trade. That is
why we must negotiate strong and sensible trade agreements.
As an analogy I sometimes compare foreign trade with a wild horse.
With a bit between its teeth, the reins in our grasp, and a firm sense
of purpose, we can harness the power and ride it where we want it to
go. But if we fail to assert ourselves, we run the risk of being thrown
and trampled and left behind.
And so I pose the following question: Will our trade deals carry us
into the future or drag us into the past?
At stake in this debate is nothing less than the safety of the food
we eat, the water we drink and the air that we breathe. At stake in
this debate is the safety of our factories, the stability of our farms
and the economic security of working families everywhere. And at stake
in this debate are the very values that give our economy strength and
our democracy meaning.
There are those who denigrate such talk. They dismiss it as mere
idealism. Almost derisively they ask, are these issues really related
to trade? And without a doubt, the answer is yes. The world has
changed, and the people who would segregate health and safety and the
environmental issues during trade negotiations fail to grasp the new
reality of this global economy.
Those pushing fast track see trade only in two dimensions, like the
flat dusty pages of an accountant's ledger. Like those who scoffed at
Columbus for claiming the Earth was round, they cling to the old
notions that no longer apply to a modern world. With a lot of talk
about the 21st century, they are pulling us back to 19th century
conditions: Lower wages, weaker consumer protections, and a dirtier
environment. I call that the past masquerading as the future.
Four years ago, when we debated NAFTA, its supporters made some
pretty big promises. And today, as we consider fast track negotiations
to expand NAFTA to other countries, it is incumbent upon us to review
the impact that that agreement has already had. So let us look at it
for a second.
In 1993 NAFTA supporters promised that the agreement would generate
hundreds of thousands of new jobs. They were wrong. According to the
Clinton administration's own assessment, NAFTA-related exports have
generated somewhere between 90,000 and 160,000 new jobs. And they
quietly say that the agreement has had a modest positive effect on the
U.S. economy.
But those figures do not account for nearly 150,000 Americans who
lost their jobs as a direct result of the agreement. That figure comes
from the Labor Department, and it only includes those workers who
received health under NAFTA's narrow trade adjustment assistance
program. Other estimates of NAFTA job-related job losses run much, much
higher. The Economic Policy Institute issued a report last month that
indicated NAFTA has cost nearly 395,000 American jobs.
Whatever the exact figure may be, the Labor Department found, this is
our own Government, they found that two-thirds of Americans who lost
their jobs due to foreign trade end up with work that pays less than
they earned before. Two-thirds of the people. Now, I do not call that
progress. I call that slipping backwards.
In 1993, NAFTA supporters promised that the agreements would generate
higher wages on both sides of the United States-Mexican border, and
they were wrong. Mexican wages along the border dropped from $1.00 an
hour, as abysmal as that is, to 70 cents an hour, according to the
International Monetary Fund. And tragically that is despite the fact of
a 26-percent increase in Mexican productivity over the past 3 years.
So the Mexican workers are working harder, they are producing more,
they are more efficient, things are increasing by 26 percent, and they
are getting paid 70 as opposed to a dollar when NAFTA was first
established.
All this is putting downward pressure on wages here in the United
States, affecting our own workers. Last year a Cornell University study
found that 62 percent of U.S. companies have used the threat of
shutting their doors or moving abroad to hold down wages and cut back
benefits and undermine collective bargaining here at home.
Now, imagine that. Sixty-two percent of our companies go to the
bargaining table with their workers and say, listen, if you do not take
a cut in
[[Page H8814]]
wages, if you do not take a cut in benefits, we will shut the doors, or
we are moving south to Mexico.
One Michigan factory even loaded an entire assembly line on a flatbed
truck, put it in front of the company with a sign that read, ``Mexico
transfer jobs.'' The workers got the message very soon, and soon they
dropped their push for union representation and a better contract. So
it is intimidation, not good faith bargaining, and that apparently has
become the coin of the realm.
In 1993, the NAFTA supporters promised the agreement would help boost
American exports. United States exports to Mexico have risen. But what
NAFTA supporters will not tell us is that most of these are what we
call revolving door exports. They come in, they come right back out.
United States components sent to the maquiladora factories along the
United States-Mexican border for a quick assembly by low wage workers,
with no protections and no environmental protections, and immediately
shipped back to the United States. They are not even there long enough
to have a visa, if they were required to have one. They are just
shipped, assembled and right back here.
Dr. Harley Shaiken, an economist at the University of California at
Berkeley, found that such exports represented more than 60 percent of
the products we shipped to Mexico last year. That is up by half from
1993. And our trade balance? Worse than ever. In 1993 we enjoyed a $2
billion trades surplus with Mexico. That is right before NAFTA. Four
years later, after it passed, that surplus has become a $16 billion
deficit. I do not call that progress. I call that slipping backward.
NAFTA, which was negotiated on a fast track, has been a self-
destructive trade policy. It is one that enriches the economic elites
and leaves working families poorer on both sides of the border.
Now, is this really, is this really the model that we want to
replicate elsewhere in Latin America and throughout the world? Is fast
track a process that we should repeat?
Let us take a closer look at the food safety issue.
Last week, and I encourage anybody who has not seen it, front page of
the New York Times, they reported a dramatic rise in disease linked to
imported foods, especially fruits and vegetables. Evidence suggest
Lindsay Doneth and her Michigan classmates are but a few of the victims
of poisoned produce.
In 1996, thousands of Americans fell seriously ill after eating
tainted Guatemalan raspberries. The fruit was apparently contaminated
with a parasite living in the water used to irrigate the fields. But
when an American inspector informed the Guatemalan growers of the
problem, the growers got angry. They banished our inspectors and
accused the United States of trumping up the health issue as a way to
protect California berry growers.
Gabriel Biguria, a leading Guatemalan exporter, called the United
States complaint, and I quote, ``a very dangerous tool for
protectionism.'' So when we stand on the side of making sure our kids
do not get poisoned because they are eating contaminated vegetables or
fruits, we are a protectionist. He said that protectionist forces find
bugs or whatever to protect their market. It is a commercial war.
Now, I wish I could say that Guatemalan raspberries were the only
threat to our health, but they are not.
{time} 1900
Contaminated Peruvian carrots, Mexican cantaloupes, Chinese
mushrooms, and the list goes on and on and on. The New York Times also
reported that while food imports into the U.S. have doubled since the
1980's, inspections have dropped to less than half of what they were 5
years ago. No, I do not call that progress, I call it slipping
backward.
As the former FDA commissioner, someone who has immense respect in
his field in this country, and around the world, I might add, David
Kessler said, ``We built a system back 100 years ago that served us
very well for a world within our borders. We didn't build a system for
the global marketplace.''
Because crops are, by necessity, exposed to air and water, the safety
of the our food is closely linked to the conditions of our environment.
I say ``our environment'' because polluted air and water respect no
international boundaries; they do not follow the dotted lines on our
maps.
When we debated NAFTA the last time around, its supporters promised
environmental cleanup on a massive scale. In order to get the votes,
they promised a $2 billion set-aside to clean up toxic sites along the
border. Today, not even 1 percent of that fund has been spent and
factories there continue to pollute at will.
I have seen the pollution along the border firsthand. I visited a
field littered with used batteries. It looked like a moonscape covered
in white powder, and lead was leaking into the ground right across from
the region's largest dairy farm that served literally millions and
millions of people. The cows were grazing not 20 feet from the poisons
that cause low IQ's and aggressive behavior in children who drink their
milk. I have seen Mexican mothers drinking from the same ditches used
to flush out factory waste and domestic sewage. I have seen their
children playing and bathing in it. It is no wonder birth defects are
common in these slums.
The American Medical Association called the border area that I am
describing to my colleagues right now ``a cesspool of infectious
disease,'' and for good reason; a full 17 percent of Mexican children
get hepatitis from contaminated drinking water.
To paraphrase Edward R. Merrill, this is an industrial harvest of
shame along the border, an industrial harvest of shame, people living
in subhuman conditions, all under our sanction.
In essence, NAFTA gives multinational corporations a financial
incentive to relocate environmental regulations where they are the
weakest, to locate where environmental regulations are the weakest. So
why adhere to higher standards north of the border when they can move
south and pollute with impunity?
When multinationals do this, they are just following the market
incentives NAFTA negotiators set up, and then they are passing the
hidden cost down to us. This sets off a race to the lowest common
denominator. While multinational corporations might be able to avoid
pollution standards, you and I will not be able to avoid the pollution
that they produce.
That is because, as I mentioned earlier, polluted air and water and
food do not stop at the dotted line on the map. We breathe it. We drink
it. We eat it. A factory spilling filth in Juarez, Mexico, might as
well be located in El Paso, Texas, whose residents breathe the same air
and they pump the water from the same river as their Mexican neighbors.
So while the economy may not yet be completely integrated, the global
environment surely is. And that makes pollution a bona fide trade
issue, one with real economic and human cost. Recognizing that requires
us to think about trade in a new way and to develop our trade policy
accordingly. Addressing these issues in the so-called side agreements,
executive orders, and other measures will not work. That was done
during NAFTA, and it has not worked.
Last week the President addressed the issue of food safety by seeking
to expand the power of the Food and Drug Administration and increase
the number of inspectors. He proposed empowering the FDA to ban produce
imports from countries which failed to comply with health standards.
Well, I respect his intent, but I respectfully suggest that such
unilateral, reactive action divorced from our trade agreements would
not be nearly as effective as a proactive negotiation with our trading
partners.
By establishing a minimum standard in our trade agreements, we could
work together to prevent potential problems from developing in the
first place and avoid rancorous disputes down the line. We must adopt
this proactive posture if we hope to preserve the standards of our
parents and our grandparents and our great grandparents, the standards
that they struggled to establish for us.
Just to review history briefly, and I think it is important to do
that, we do not talk about history enough and what our folks did before
us. Just remember that, at the turn of the century, industrial
accidents were killing 35,000 American workers each year. An additional
500,000, a half million, were being maimed. It took a fire that
[[Page H8815]]
claimed the lives of 146 immigrant women locked inside the Triangle
Shirt Waste Company to ignite a movement for workplace safety. And we
got workplace safety standards.
Today, most Americans take their right to a safe workplace for
granted. In the fall of 1913, some 9,000 Colorado miners and their
families went on strike for an 8-hour day. To break the strike, the
mining companies mounted a machine gun on an armored vehicle and dubbed
it ``Death Special'' and sent it rumbling out to intimidate the
workers. Fighting broke out. The strikers' tent colony was burned to
the ground. Twenty-one people were killed, including 11 children.
Today, most Americans take an 8-hour day for granted.
At the turn of the century, unscrupulous meat packers were selling
carloads of rotten beef to a powerless public. It took Upton Sinclair's
1906 novel ``The Jungle'' to expose this deadly fraud and spark a
movement for food safety.
And I could go on and on and on and talk about the movements, the
sit-down strike in Detroit, Michigan, that helped create the unions
that brought the largest and most bondable middle class in the history
of the world in this country.
I can talk about what happened at Homestead in Pennsylvania with the
steelworkers. I could spend 5 hours going over example after example of
people who came before us who established with their heart and their
guts the standards that we enjoy today, people who bled for, were
jailed for, were beaten for, and some died for the rights that we so
much enjoy.
Until recently, Americans thought they could shop at a supermarket
without worrying about the safety of their food. They are not so sure
anymore.
I cite these historical examples because I think it is vital to
remember where we come from and the sacrifices previous generations
made so that ordinary people might enjoy a decent standard of living.
As we approach a new century, these historic gains are being
undermined. They are being undermined by powerful multinationals which
have no allegiance to this country or any other, only to the bottom
line of their quarterly earnings reports. But just as Teddy Roosevelt
and the Progressive Movement rose up against the great industries that
stomped like giants across America's economic landscape, we will not
permit today's multinationals to trample our rights.
As citizens of the United States, we have a vested interest in
developing a trade policy that provides market incentives, responsible
incentives, responsible behavior on the part of everybody engaged in
international commerce.
Fast-track supporters will argue that the United States cannot expect
less developed countries to adhere to our standards. Well, they did not
make that argument when they insisted on protections in NAFTA for
intellectual property produced by major corporations like Disney and
Microsoft. We should protect intellectual property. But we should also
insist that Lindsey Doneth gets as much protection as Donald Duck. And
right now, that is not the case.
Recognizing this requires us to think about trade in a new way and to
develop our trade policies accordingly. I am not arguing that other
countries must establish the exact same minimum wage as we have, not at
all. But we know, we know from our history, that the living standards
we enjoy, the consumer protections we rely on, the freedoms that we
cherish, the rights that we claim, they just did not happen, and if we
are not careful, they could disappear.
From the American Revolution, to the Civil War, to the battlefields
of Europe, to the strawberry fields of Watson, CA, to the factories of
Flint, MI, Americans have had to fight for opportunity and justice
every step of the way. Nothing has been automatic. This should tell us
something, that similar progress outside the United States will not be
automatic either.
Unchecked market forces alone did not generate safer food, better
wages, or a cleaner environment here in the United States, and
unchecked market forces alone will not generate them abroad either.
There are brave people struggling today for basic rights throughout
Latin America, just as our ancestors fought earlier this century for
the rights we enjoy in the United States. Our trade policy should help
working people get ahead in life, not keep them mired in poverty as
NAFTA does.
It has always taken some constructive countervailing pressure to
ensure that free market benefits the broad majority, not just the
economic elites. That is what the Progressive Movement at the turn of
the century was all about.
Today, as the United States embraces a growing international market,
our trade policy must help to provide that countervailing pressure,
harnessing economic growth for the benefit of many, not just the few.
And that is why we need to negotiate tough trade agreements, trade
deals that include strong environmental labor and consumer protections,
trade deals that promote prosperity and reflect our commitment to
democratic values and a decent standard of living. It is not an either/
or choice; we can do both. That choice lies in how we structure our
trading relationships. America should be negotiating tough trade deals
that harness the power of trade and reflect our commitment to
democratic values.
Global trade is here to stay. The question is, what are the rules
going to be and who is going to benefit? If we do not stand firm
against the international tug of lower standards and lower wages and
lower benefits and a dirtier environment, then nobody will. If we do
not stand firm, all of us will pay the price and so will generations to
come.
America must stand up for what is right, just as we have so many
times in the past. We must point the way to the future. We must
exercise what they call ``leadership.'' Those who support Fast Track
often like to bandy that term about. ``America must be a leader,'' they
say.
Well, I agree. But what they are proposing is that America lead a
retreat to the past. What they are proposing is a policy that has
already failed. What they are proposing leads us in the wrong
direction. America needs a trade policy that helps build a better
future. Hammering this out with our trading partners will not be easy.
But that is what leadership is all about, convincing people of a better
direction, not just following the comfortable ruts of the past.
Leadership is about standing up for what is right, not about caving in
to what is easy.
It would be easy to negotiate trade agreements that surrender hard-
fought gains of this century, but that would be wrong. It would be easy
to set aside the toughest trade issues for the sake of a quick
agreement, but that would be sowing the seeds of our own decline.
Fast Track supporters claim that this process is necessary to land
important new trade deals. But the administration has already
negotiated more than 200 such deals without Fast Track.
Fast Track supporters claim that that process is essential if the
United States hopes to boost trade with South America. But in the past
year alone, our trade surplus with South America has doubled to $3.6
billion, far outstripping all of our rivals.
Fast Track supporters claim that this is a philosophical struggle,
and they label me and my friends wrongly as protectionists. Well, to
them I say, the old argument between protectionism and free trade, that
died a long time ago. Ours is the debate about America's capacity to
shape the future.
But I will tell them, and I will tell them with pride, that I do
believe in protecting the air we breathe, I do believe in protecting
the water that we drink, I do believe in protecting Lindsey Doneth and
the children of America from unsafe food, and I do believe in
protecting the American values that endowed our democracy with
direction and purpose and spirit and with meaning.
So, as we approach the 21st century, I refuse to trade these away, on
a fast track or any other track. America can do better, and we must do
better. With a new progressive approach to foreign trade, one built on
our democratic values, we can both honor our history and embrace our
future.
Mr. Speaker, it is now my distinct honor to recognize and yield to
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pascrell], my distinguished
colleague,
[[Page H8816]]
who has been a real champion on this issue and has been here late into
the evening talking about this, educating our colleagues.
The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pascrell] has been a wonderful
inspiration. We are just so honored and delighted to have him in the
Congress. At this point, I would yield to him.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to discuss a matter of
great importance to my district and to the Nation as a whole, the issue
of the renewal of fast-track trade negotiating authority. This is first
a consumer issue, second a jobs issue, and third a wage issue.
{time} 1915
The previous speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Bonior], has clearly defined the parameters of this debate very
differently than the administration.
As the debate moves forward, and as supporters and detractors of the
measure voice their positions, I rise tonight for the purpose of
clarification and to share the conclusions that I have come to
regarding this important issue.
The President's measure seeks to extend fast track authority for 8
years. As such, it sets our national trade policy as we approach and
then enter the 21st century.
No one doubts the fact that we do live in a global economy and that
nations are more interconnected than ever before. No one doubts that if
we are to retain our preeminent position in the world, we must lead
from strength, both economically and morally.
For me, global leadership in the area of international trade means
that fair trade should not be subordinated to the notion of free trade.
We must trade with other nations on an equal footing and not sacrifice
American jobs to those earning a lower wage, particularly when that
nation has not yet achieved our level of social, economic and
environmental development.
The proponents of fast track argue that the administration deserves
this ability based on what they perceive as a successful NAFTA policy.
They point to the creation of 311,000 new jobs. I take exception, and
many take exception, to this figure and cite an alternative one
documented which states that 600,000 jobs have been lost during NAFTA's
first 34 months. In northern New Jersey alone where I live, statistics
show that approximately 15,000 jobs have been lost since 1993. Many
companies in my district, small machinery, apparel, textile, foot wear,
specifically point to NAFTA as the proximate cause of the reduction in
their business.
This leads me to my next point. Fast track is about jobs, but just as
importantly, it is about consumer safety in areas like imported food;
it is about the environment and environmental degradation; about labor
rights and the viability of small businesses; and finally, it is about
the consumers paying a reasonable price for goods. We should not lower
our standards and sacrifice consumer safety and environmental
protections and labor rights simply because we subscribe to the notion
of free trade, which has proven to be a myth in the last 4 years.
Trade policy needs to be inclusive regarding these important
elements, not exclusive. Labor and environmental provisions need to be
in the core agreements, not in unenforceable side agreements which put
our workers and our jobs at risk and in jeopardy. If we do not lead
from the high ground, we will relinquish all that we have accomplished
in our long process to achieve the society that we now live in, the
greatest democracy in the world.
The argument that this fast track legislation represents forward
progress rings hollow to my ears and to many of my colleagues. The
facts and figures and anecdotes we are about to discuss will bear this
out. We need a forward-looking trade policy, not one that looks
backward.
Mr. Speaker, in the very short period of the last 3 years, the
consumer in this country is now in a position never before, never
before experienced, and that is, imported apparel to the United States
of America is now 2.2 percent higher than domestic apparel.
Yet, when we look at these charts, we see that in imported apparel to
the United States of America there is a retail market of 55 percent,
compared to 50 percent in those domestic goods made here. Yet, when we
look down lower to imported goods, only 1 percent of the total picture
goes to manufacturing labor. In our chart to my far right, the domestic
apparel takes up 15 percent for labor.
How can our workers compete against these figures? And yet, at the
same time, our wives and our loved ones go into stores and pay much
more for goods that are being paid for and manufactured for literally
bowls of rice in certain parts of this world. This is not an open
market, this is constriction. This is not helping the American
consumer, this is hurting the American consumer. This is not creating
jobs, this is hurting jobs in America. We need to stop exporting those
jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes a wonderful point here.
What he is saying is that the wage being paid to workers in other
countries to manufacture this apparel is one-fifteenth, if I am
correct, of what was being paid to American workers to manufacture the
apparel here.
Mr. PASCRELL. That is exactly what I am saying.
Mr. BONIOR. And yet, Mr. Speaker, those products when they come here
have a price tag on them comparable to what the prices are here, or
even more, so someone is doing very, very well.
Mr. PASCRELL. Very well.
Mr. BONIOR. It is not the worker here, because they are losing their
jobs to people who are getting paid less there. It is not the worker
there, in Mexico. As I pointed out, their wages have gone from $1 an
hour to 70 cents an hour, despite the fact that they are producing 26
percent more. It is not the consumer that is getting the benefit,
because the rates they are charging for this apparel are the same or
even more when they come in here, so what is going on here?
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asked the question, and I
think everyone knows the answer: Who is making the money? It is
certainly not Main Street, it is Wall Street.
The gentleman and I certainly disagree on several issues, but I think
people understand, throughout their districts across America, who is
making the profits. It is very, very obvious that it is a quick kill,
it is a quick buck. And regrettably we have too many people in this
Chamber on both sides of the aisle, and in this administration and in
past administrations, that are so concerned about their friends on Wall
Street, so concerned about some businesses that might make a quick
buck, that they forget all of the people that are getting crushed in
the meantime.
It is something that concerns me greatly. It concerns me when we have
the debate over China MFN, it concerns me when we talk about other
countries. It seems to me that in this day and age, everybody is open
to the highest bidder.
In a fireside chat F.D.R. made in 1938, he said at the end of his
speech, and in the deepest, darkest time of the Depression, he said,
``My fellow Americans, things are bad, but at least we are having a
financial crisis and not a spiritual one.''
I would say when we turn our jobs over to the lowest bidder across
the world, be it in Mexico or China, or now in the areas that we are
talking about going into, that we are having a crisis of the American
spirit that F.D.R. warned about 50, 60 years ago. And despite our
disagreements on other issues, I thank the gentleman for bringing this
very important issue up.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution. I
think he has hit it right on the head.
The regrettable part of all this, of course, is that people look at
the economy and the unemployment rates today and they say gosh,
unemployment rates are down. But as we illustrated in our discussion
just this evening, those 395,000 Americans who lost their jobs in the
last less than 4 years as a result of NAFTA, according to the Economic
Policy Institute, almost 400,000 people, what they did, they found
other jobs, most of them, but two-thirds of them found jobs that paid
less.
[[Page H8817]]
That is what we mean when we talk about downward pressure on wages,
downward pressure. Because of the leverage that the multinationals hold
over workers, the leverage because they can go to places like Mexico or
Malaysia or other places and they do not have to adhere to these
environmental standards; they do not have to adhere to any wage and
safety laws; all of the things, as I said earlier, our parents and
grandparents and great grandparents fought for and that we take for
granted today.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my colleagues, I just
wanted to bring out something that both of my colleagues have
mentioned, and that is in terms of wages. Just today in the papers in
New Jersey, and that is in 1990, if one was making in the area of
$44,000 to $45,000 a year, since that time, in that 5- or 6-year period
that we have the statistics for, one's wages increased $104 in those 5
years. Anything below that, anything below that, and that means a lot
of folks in my district, the Eighth District in New Jersey, the losses
can be anywhere from $800 to $2,000. Those are astonishing numbers.
Now, we want and believe in trade, but we want our workers and our
businesses to benefit. We have redefined the debate very significantly,
because this is not labor versus business. Many of those who oppose
fast track in my district own businesses and are very conservative,
austere business people who are being hurt, and they understand what is
going on very well.
So to define this as this against that, we are not going to accept
that this time, are we?
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. And if the gentleman will yield again, the numbers,
there is such a difference between those two numbers, and I think it
illustrates very vividly that we can seek middle ground. I am a
conservative, laissez-faire free trader, and yet, that does not mean we
have to be dumb.
We can fight for fair trade, but for some reason, if we engage in
this debate and say, ``Hey, wait a second, let us just make sure, maybe
we will not have a level playing field with Mexico, let us just make
sure we can at least get in the game,'' then all of a sudden we are
attacked for being an isolationist or a protectionist or having our
head in the sand and not understanding the realities of global
economics in the 21st century.
I think they are setting up false choices and I think the numbers
that the gentleman points out illustrate that vividly. We can find
middle ground on an issue like this, but this certainly is not middle
ground, this is extremism on the side of just blatantly unfair trade.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Scarborough] for his comments, and I thank the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pascrell].
____________________