[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 158 (Monday, November 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12456-S12457]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FAST-TRACK LEGISLATION

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senate is in the process of considering 
fast-track legislation--a take-it-or-leave-it procedure for any trade 
agreements the administration sends to the Congress for approval. This 
procedure, created back in 1974, prevents Congress from taking any 
steps to improve trade agreements, even if there is unanimous agreement 
to do so.
  While it has only been used five times since its creation, Americans 
need to understand that it amounts to an abdication of Congress' power, 
granted under article I, section 8 of the Constitution: ``to regulate 
commerce with foreign nations.''
  Fast track does not provide the President with negotiating authority. 
The President already has that authority. Agreements are then submitted 
to Congress for its approval.
  In fact, this President has concluded over 200 trade agreements since 
taking office, only 2 of which were approved by Congress under fast-
track procedures.
  Mr. President, much is at stake in this debate. The issue today is 
how we can best ensure that all Americans--corporate chiefs, 
shareholders, and workers--can benefit from expanded trade.
  Supporters of fast-track legislation are misleading the American 
public when they claim our economic leadership is at stake. Last 
month's turmoil in the financial markets provided new evidence that the 
entire world takes its economic cues largely from what happens here in 
America.
  This is also not a battle that pits free traders versus 
protectionists. With exports a key part of the U.S. economy, no one is 
discounting our economy's global nature. But the fact remains that this 
Nation is already the most open market on the Earth. And no one 
opposing fast track today is seeking to raise a tariff wall against 
goods from other nations.
  The real issue is what America's trade policy should be for the 21st 
century. Do we continue doing things the way we have been doing them 
for the last 20 years? Or do we find the courage to develop a trade 
policy that benefits all Americans, from the corporate office to the 
assembly line to the storefront. And do we finally forge a true 
partnership between the executive and legislative branch to develop 
trade policy?
  Fast-track supporters maintain that, without the fast-track 
procedure, Congress will simply amend any trade agreement to death. 
They say trade agreements involve too many players, are too 
complicated, and are too delicate to risk bringing before a Congress 
where most Members didn't have direct involvement in the negotiations.
  This is nonsense. There are many, very complicated and delicate 
issues passed by Congress through the normal legislative process. This 
year's budget deal is a prime example, There were many players 
involved. The subject matter was broad and complex. Most Members did 
not play a direct role in the negotiations. And the final resolution 
involved a delicate compromise that could have easily fallen apart.

  But Congress took up the entire package and passed it. The President 
signed it and we are now on our way to a balanced budget. I believe the 
same model could be applied to trade talks.
  Mr. President, aside from the basic philosophical differences over 
how this Nation should approach trade policy, the fast-track bill 
reported by the Finance Committee forces the President to negotiate 
trade agreements in a vacuum. Under this legislation, the President is 
forced to ignore the lack of fair labor standards or adequate 
environmental standards in other countries.
  We should not simply accept the premise that labor and environmental 
standards have nothing to do with trade. Any business in America 
recognizes that labor and environmental policy is, in fact, 
competitiveness policy. If they didn't believe it, they wouldn't oppose 
even modest increases in the minimum wage. If they didn't believe it, 
they wouldn't be concerned about new EPA regulations on clean air.
  But the fact is, they do believe it. And so should Congress when it 
comes to the labor and environmental policies of our trading partners. 
They make a difference wherever goods are made, bought, or sold.
  My colleagues should also be aware that the committee bill requires 
the President to ignore environmental and labor policy, while at the 
same time requiring him to negotiate on several other nontrade areas.
  Patent and copyright law. Monetary policy. Food safety issues. 
Government procurement policies. All of these are included in the 
bill's principal negotiating objectives because the committee 
recognizes that these nontrade areas have an impact on trade.
  We do use trade agreements to promote more consistent and more 
equitable regulatory systems around the world. And we need to 
recognize, once and for all, that the nonenforcement--or nonexistence--
of labor and environmental standards jeopardizes American jobs and 
industry just as much as the nonenforcement and nonexistence of 
intellectual property laws.
  One of the first agreements that would come before the Senate under 
fast track would be the accession of Chile to the NAFTA. So, it's fair 
to ask how well this agreement, negotiated and adopted under fast-track 
procedures, has operated for our country.
  One year before the implementation of NAFTA, the United States had a 
trade surplus with Mexico of about $2 billion. Last year, the United 
States had a trade deficit with Mexico of nearly $17 billion--a $19 
billion shift in trade over a 3-year period. The administration claims 
that 120,000 to 160,000 jobs have been created as a result of NAFTA. 
But the Labor Department's NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance Program 
has certified 136,000 workers as having lost their jobs as a result of 
NAFTA. Other estimates, including a recent one by the Economic Policy 
Institute, put the number at 400,000 jobs lost.
  By far, the hardest hit has been the apparel sector, which has lost 
158,000 workers in the last 28 months as apparel imports from Mexico 
have doubled.
  NAFTA certainly has been a success--for Mexico. Unfortunately, 
America has fared much worse under the agreement.
  Fast-track supporters argue that if we don't act now to expand the 
NAFTA to include Chile, and, ultimately, other South American 
countries, we will cede our leadership and fall behind to other trading 
partners.
  But listen to what the pro-NAFTA 20th Century Fund has to say about 
the cost of not expanding NAFTA:

       What are the costs to the United States if NAFTA is not 
     expanded? . . . Despite the growth of intraregional trade 
     outside the NAFTA, the costs to the United States of failing 
     to expand NAFTA are not high in strictly economic terms. 
     Whatever occurs on the trade front, the United States will 
     remain the region's dominant economy. NAFTA represents 75% of 
     trade in the hemisphere. . .And NAFTA's exports and imports 
     are more than ten times those of Mercosur, the next largest 
     regional organization.

  And the facts bear out what the 20th Century Fund says. In the past 
year, without fast track and without new trade agreements, our trade 
surplus with South America has doubled, to $3.6 billion.
  As bad as the national numbers are, they are still worse for my own 
State of Kentucky. Exports to Mexico account for just 3 percent of all 
Kentucky's exports and support just 950 jobs, according to the pro-
NAFTA

[[Page S12457]]

Council of the Americas. NAFTA resulted in an increase of just 4 
million dollars' worth of exports to Mexico from Kentucky.
  Unfortunately, the other side of the equation--imports from Mexico--
has had a much more immediate and devastating impact on Kentucky. In 
1993, over 30,000 Kentuckians worked in the apparel industry. Today, 
there are just 25,000 Kentucky apparel workers. The layoffs began soon 
after NAFTA passed and continue to this day. Just this past August, a 
major apparel manufacturer in my State laid off 2,000 workers.
  When these jobs are lost and plants close, it is simply devastating 
to whole communities in Kentucky. I'd like to share with my colleagues 
an account of the plant closings we've suffered in Kentucky.
  An August 8 story in the Louisville Courier-Journal talked about the 
latest blow to Kentucky's garment industry. Layoffs by Fruit of the 
Loom of 2,000 workers represents the latest loss to what the paper 
described as the ``hemorrhaging garment-industry'' in Kentucky. ``At 
Fruit of the Loom alone, employment will have fallen from 11,000 2 
years ago to 5,000 by the time the latest round of layoffs is completed 
* * *.''
  The vice president of Fruit of the Loom was blunt in his assessment. 
``We're being impacted by global competition resulting from 
international trade barriers. We can do the same work cheaper somewhere 
else.''
  Bill Parsons, executive director of the Lake Cumberland Area 
Development District where Fruit of the Loom is located, agrees.

       Why would any good businessman want to stay in the U.S., 
     where its going to cost $8.48 an hour to make a garment you 
     can make for 48 cents somewhere else? It makes a lot of 
     business sense when you're looking at the bottom line.

  David and NaDena Agee know first-hand about the bottom-line. Another 
Courier-Journal story tells how they ``have a mortgage on a house they 
bought two years ago when they were both making good salaries at the 
Fruit of the Loom Plant in Campbellsville. They also have a 19-month-
old son who is growing up fast. But after October 8, neither David nor 
NaDena will have a job because of continuing layoffs at the plant. They 
are worried about how they will provide for their son.''

  Instead of telling hardworking Americans like the Agees how fast 
track will assure them of a stable future, supporters of fast track are 
simply looking the other way.
  Mr. President, I understand that international trade is not just 
confined to NAFTA. But proponents of fast track won't find a convincing 
argument on the other side of the world either.
  Our trade deficit is enormous and growing. In 1995, our trade deficit 
rang in at $105 billion. Last year's deficit was still higher--$114 
billion. And this year we are on our way to our fourth consecutive year 
of record high trade deficits. The monthly trade deficit has increased 
each month this year except June.
  Why do we have such enormous deficit? In the past, the experts have 
chalked it up to our persistent and large budget deficits. But now that 
we are in our fifth year of declining budget deficits and on our way to 
a balanced budget, that explanation has fallen out of favor.
  Now, the experts are prepared to tell us the reason is a low savings 
rate compared to other countries--even though many of those other 
countries with higher savings rates don't have a Social Security 
system, as we do.
  It seems any explanation of a trade deficit will do, so long as it 
has no connection to our trade policy. But that, in this Senator's 
mind, is where the problem is: our trade policy seems too often to be 
crafted for the benefit of other nations.
  Month after month, I receive letters from Kentucky businesses asking 
for an end to a trade barrier an international trade agreement was 
supposed to resolve. This year, for example, I have received letters 
that: called for an end to Canada's exploitation of a NAFTA loophole to 
inundate the U.S. with wool suits made of Chinese fabric; demanded the 
Philippines implement a WTO decision against that country's system of 
using import licenses to keep American pork out; decried China's de 
facto ban on pork and tobacco products; called for better enforcement 
of our flat glass agreement with Japan; and, opposed the EU's proposal 
to accelerate the phase out of CFC's in an effort to disadvantage U.S. 
exports.
  Mr. President, violations of existing agreements are particularly 
costly in the textile and apparel sector, where 4 to 10 billion 
dollars' worth of goods are illegally shipped to the United States. 
Countries like China and India routinely illegally label and ship their 
products through a third country in order to avoid an agreed upon 
quota.
  Let me share a specific example of the noncompliance I'm talking 
about. After the enactment of the Uruguay round, the United States 
brought a case against Japan. Japan maintained a tax system designed to 
discourage the sale of imported distilled spirits, including Kentucky 
bourbon.
  In November, 1996, the WTO found that the Japanese system violated 
the principal of national treatment--that a participating nation must 
accord imported and domestic products the same treatment.
  How did Japan respond? Japan agreed to make the necessary changes to 
its tax law--by the year 2001, five years after the WTO decision! So 
now, the Japanese and American Governments are in negotiations over how 
long it's going to take Japan to fix a law it should never have adopted 
in the first place. What's more, there is now talk that the United 
States may accept ``compensation'' for Japan's refusal to amend its 
law. This would mean that U.S. distilled spirits exporters won't get a 
thing out of an agreement that was supposed to win them market access.
  Mr. President, I want to close by reiterating what brings me and 
other fast-track opponents to the floor. It's not because we want to 
raise up new tariff walls. It's not because we are isolationists. It's 
not because we want to protect jobs from any competition whatsoever. 
It's simply because our trade policy has not been a good one for the 
people of my State, nor the vast majority of States. It's because there 
ought to be a way to negotiate trade agreements that make Congress a 
partner every step of the way. And it's because there are so many 
problems in the agreements we have today that demand to be fixed.
  So let's work together to forge a new trade policy that truly opens 
markets overseas, that benefits all Americans and that includes 
important issues, like labor laws and environmental regulation.
  Mr. President, let's put fast track on the right track.

                          ____________________