[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 156 (Saturday, November 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H10410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               FAST TRACK

  (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I have in my left hand a document which is 
the bill we will be voting on tomorrow. It is called the reciprocal 
trade agreement, not unlike the reciprocal trade agreement in the early 
1930's. The only problem is that our trade policies have not been 
reciprocal in particularly the last 3 years.
  NAFTA has caused job losses in the hundreds of thousands for the last 
34 months. In our area in north Jersey, approximately 15,000 jobs have 
been lost since NAFTA's inception. And in Mexico and Canada, it is 
graphic evidence that NAFTA is not working over the long haul. We have 
tripled, we have quadrupled the imbalance in trade with Mexico, 2\1/2\ 
times the imbalance in trade with Canada. This is not a record of 
accomplishment but rather of failure. Please vote ``no'' on fast track.
  Mr. Speaker, today 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.
  As the debate moves to a close, and as supporters and detractors of 
the measure voice their positions, I rise today for the purpose of 
clarification. And to share the conclusions that I have come to 
regarding this important issue.
  The measure seeks to extend fast-track authority for 4 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 live in a global economy--and that 
nation's are more interconnected then 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.
  And for me, global leadership in the arena of international trade 
means that fair trade should not be subordinated to the notion of free 
trade.
  We must trade with other nations on 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 bill that I am holding--the Reciprocal Trade Agreement 
Authorities Act of 1997--commonly referred to as fast track--states 
very clearly its objectives and scope.
  Section 102(b)7(B) of the bill states that:

       The principle negotiating objectives of the United States 
     is to ensure that foreign governments do not derogate from or 
     waive existing domestic environmental, health, safety, or 
     labor measures . . . as an encouragement to gain competitive 
     advantage in international trade.

  The key word in this section is ``existing.'' No country that fast 
track is designed to facilitate trade with, has adequate existing 
environmental and labor structures. Nothing in the legislation before 
us enables the United States to negotiate for higher standards. That is 
unacceptable and workers, business owners, and consumers in the United 
States have paid the price for this disparity in standards.
  And, just as importantly, the fast-tract authority that past 
Presidents have had--including President's Bush and Reagan--allowed 
them to negotiate weak side agreements for labor and the environment; 
this measure does not even allow that.
  Basically, we are throwing up our hands and saying let those with 
whom we trade improve on their own--and in their own time.
  We are saying: Let them pay their workers a bowl of rice a day, let 
them not give their workers the right to organize, let their factories 
dump sewage into the rivers, let them pollute the air, let them ship 
tainted food across our borders to be consumed at dinner tables across 
the country, and on and on and on.
  And make no mistake about it--this debate is not about labor versus 
business or Republican versus Democrat--this debate is about jobs. Its 
about the environment and environmental degradation. Its about consumer 
safety in areas like imported food. Its about the viability of small 
businesses who struggle to be competitive. And finally its about 
consumers who today are paying more now than ever before for imported 
apparel at the clothing store.
  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 to this figure and cite an alternative one from the 
Economic Policy Institute which states that 600,000 jobs have been lost 
during NAFTA's first 34 months.
  In northern New Jersey alone, statistics show that approximately 
15,000 jobs have been lost since 1993. Many companies in my district 
specifically point to NAFTA as the proximate cause of their reduction 
in business. In fact, the small businesses who have contacted me have 
had to cut jobs--and have not created a single new one since 1993.
  Trade policy needs to be inclusive regarding these important 
elements, not exclusive. Labor and environmental provisions need to be 
in the core agreement. If we do not lead from the high ground we will 
relinquish all that we have accomplished in our long progress to 
achieving the society that we now live in.
  The argument that this fast-track legislation represents forward 
progress rings hollow to my ears and to many of my colleagues. I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this flawed measure.

                          ____________________