[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 159 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2338-E2339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               FAST TRACK

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. MARCY KAPTUR

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 12, 1997

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, by defeating fast-track negotiating 
authority, the House holds a rare and, in fact, profound opportunity--
after nearly two decades of growing pleas from the American people--to 
define a new and responsible American free trade policy where trade 
becomes a two-way corridor--where reciprocity reigns; where America's 
trade ledgers move from deficit to surplus again; where fair treatment 
and a living wage is afforded people who work, and where the wages and 
benefits earned by America's workers rise again; where the rule of law 
gains ascendancy on a global basis; where respect for the world's 
environment is fundamental; where we as Members of Congress uphold our 
own sovereign constitutional responsibilities as this Nation's chief 
lawmaking body on trade.
  Congress must respond to the plight of people like Ethel Tyner or 
David Filipiak or Griselda Rodriquez--our fellow citizens who have paid 
the price of flawed trade agreements. Our trade policy cannot abandon 
people such as Wanda Napier of Missouri, who had worked for Lee Apparel 
for 14 years and whose job was terminated and moved south of the 
border.
  Like millions of other Americans who remain invisible to the 
persistent proponents of fast track, Wanda was on the losing end of 
fast track. Vanity Fair Corp., parent company of Lee Apparel which has 
been expanding its operations in Mexico and other foreign countries 
while terminating 1,650 more jobs in the United States, suddenly 
announced in September 1996 it was closing the plant where Wanda had 
worked for over a dozen years, throwing 350 Americans out of work.
  President Clinton, after failing to acknowledge her plight for nearly 
2 years recommended the fast-tracker's panacea to Wanda--retraining. 
Well, she went for retraining. In her own words,

       We were ridiculed and humiliated by the local division of 
     Employment Security. Even though most of us had never asked 
     the United States government for a dime in their lives, we 
     were treated like we were worthless and had our hands in the 
     government till. We were told we couldn't go the schools we 
     wanted or take the training we needed. We were told that the 
     only training we could have was the quickest, the fastest, 
     and the cheapest.

  Today Wanda works for two-thirds her former wage and receives no 
health benefits or pension.
  A vote against fast track is a vote of conscience that puts a human 
face on trade. It is a vote that says where trade is not a two-way 
street, serious human casualties prevail. The President claims that 
fast-track trade agreements create ``good, high-paying jobs at home.'' 
What jobs? The Economic Policy Institute has identified almost 400,000 
more lost U.S. jobs, 19,000 in Ohio, just from NAFTA. In just the last 
3 months, nearly 3,000 more jobs have been moved to Mexico alone. Yes, 
Mr. President, more people are working but they are working harder for 
less--4 percent less since NAFTA and GATT even in this time of economic 
growth, and 20 percent less over the last 20 years.
  Just ask thousands of Americans whose jobs are being fast-tracked 
outside the United States as we conduct this polite debate--the 279 
recently terminated workers at Eveready Battery in Fremont, OH; or the 
350 terminated workers at Jansport in Burlington, WA; or the 1,500 
workers that got pink slips at Fruit of the Loom in Louisiana this 
Tuesday; or the 10,000 at Kodak in Rochester, NY and elsewhere who 
await their layoffs this week; or the thousands of vegetable farmers 
and production workers in Florida whose futures have been permanently 
altered because our Government failed to respond in a timely manner to 
the import surges that wiped out over 225 farm operations since NAFTA's 
passage. Talk to the hundreds of thousands of terminated workers whose 
jobs have been fast-tracked, and who if they have been re-employed, now 
earn $2 less per hour on average than on their previous job, many of 
them working part-time, or for reduced hours with lower or nonexistent 
health and pension benefits.

  On the global front, it's time for a realignment of U.S. trade policy 
that goes beyond the narrow tariff and investment focus of NAFTA and 
GATT. America must not trade away its middle-class jobs. Expanding 
trade must be linked to democracy building and social development 
abroad--free trade among free peoples.
  As John Kennedy taught us, ``economic growth without political 
freedom elsewhere remains an empty promise'' in history's long struggle 
toward the liberation of subjugated people. Tonight, we demand an 
international trade policy that respects people as much as it respects 
capital.
  Will the trade rules that govern that global market ensure that trade 
does not become a race to the bottom, undermining America's jobs, 
wages, and consumer and environmental protections? Will it lead to the 
development of democracy and the rule of law in other nations or simply 
enforce plutocracy? The question for the 21st century is whether the 
world trade regime will foster a global village or a global plantation. 
So far, U.S. trade negotiators have been successful in safeguarding 
capital rights--foreign investment, copyrights, and corporate 
prerogatives but unsuccessful in safeguarding people's rights--a living 
wage and decent working conditions, a safe environment, and a lift in 
the standard-of-living for our people as well as those from other 
lands. If America keeps its markets open while other global markets 
remain highly hurdled, we will continue to erode our middle-class 
standard-of-living and degrade the world's environment. America has a 
moral duty to assure that the global marketplace benefits everyone, not 
just those capital interests with the deepest pockets.


                   U.S. Trade Deficits Have Exploded

  Let us look for a moment at the ledger. For a century, America has 
been the world's leading trading nation. We still are. Whether the 
United States will lead the world in the next century is not the 
question. The question is where will we lead. Until the mid 1970's, 
U.S. trade accounts had been generally in balance. But over the last 20 
years, particularly since, fast track has become a device to end run 
Congress, America has amassed enormous trade deficits that today lop 
one full point off of U.S. GDP, representing $1 trillion in lost 
income.
  The pattern is familiar. Dole Pineapple, for example, closes down all 
its production in Hawaii, abandoning thousands of employees, moves its 
operations to low-wage havens such as Vietnam and Thailand where field 
workers are paid with three meals a day. Dole's female processing 
workers earn pennies an hour, and the pineapple they can is then 
shipped here to the United States for sale. All the while the price-
per-can increases. Dole stock rises on Wall Street, but the workers on 
Hawaii's main street get pink slips, while the productive capacity of 
Hawaii is diminished. The story is the same whether it is a Japanese 
corporation such as Bandai, or Nike, or dozens of others who trade off 
people's sweat for money.
  What we see is a handful of giant global firms, many with assets 
larger than nation states, who hold no national allegiance and 
gravitate to the lowest common denominator in wage scales. They are the 
ones who have the front row seats at the World Trade Organization in 
Geneva. They continue to monopolize the benefits of the current trade 
regime.

  I can understand why these groups support fast track and other means 
to limit congressional debate and perusal of these vital agreements. 
What other measures that come before Congress are subject to after-
midnight votes, Congress being held hostage, and such arm-twisting. Let 
me remind you these global firms have not created a single net new job 
here at home in the past quarter century. So isn't it time for us to 
take account of their ledger, and demystify it for the American people.
  What has happened in the past 25 years is that the United States has 
become the residual importer for world markets that largely remain 
closed to us. The important figure is the net of exports minus imports. 
On this the United States has been the clear loser for over two 
decades.
  The United States racked up a $170-billion trade deficit for 1996. 
Add this to the deficits of the previous 20 years and the trade debt 
represents $1.8 trillion of wealth transferred from the American people 
to foreign creditors--a massive loan from foreign countries which must 
eventually be repaid. Our trade deficit with China will surpass $40 
billion this year; post-NAFTA, our surplus with Mexico has fallen to an 
$18-billion deficit; our annual $50-billion deficit with Japan remains 
intractable. In fact, for every country with which the United States 
has negotiated a fast-track agreement, our Nation has fallen into 
deficit. Since the United States hold a positive trade balance with 
Chile and the MERCOSUR nations, why rock the boat? Shouldn't Congress 
exercise its responsibility to correct that which is wrong with the 
current system before expanding it?
  If the trade deficit keeps growing at this rate for another decade, 
the United States will essentially be paying the equivalent of 2.5 
percent of our GDP in trade debt service--virtually all of the recent 
annual increase in the GDP! This means our people pedal harder but 
their bicycles still slip backward. Moreover, this continued 
hemorrhaging of U.S. jobs and industry hollows out our manufacturing 
and

[[Page E2339]]

agricultural base. There is a difference between Wall Street's paper 
money and productive wealth.
  If the United States does not take the initiative to modernize our 
trade policies at this historical moment at the dawn of the 21st 
century, I ask, what country will? Who will carry the burden to root 
our trade agreements in our fundamental national values, beginning with 
individual dignity and justice for all.
  The ongoing fast-track debate has served to illuminate the 
deficiencies of oldstyle trade agreements. It cannot pass on its 
merits. The frantic wheeling and dealing by the White House and the 
Republican leadership that characterized the last 100 hours of the 
debate shows the opponents of fast track have already won a great moral 
and intellectual victory. So in a historic and troubling last-minute 
search for votes, every conceivable lure has been used to dangle in 
front of undecided members--Christmas tree provisions in appropriation 
bills, threats to take away Members' chairmanships, tax breaks for 
southern towns, bridges, roads through national forests, financial help 
in upcoming primary and general elections, trade preferences for sub-
Saharan African nations, tobacco subsidy guarantees, wheat ad wine 
deals--you name it; it's on the table.
  It my 15 years in Congress, this type of tawdry, unyielding pressure 
convinces me just how powerful the forces resisting change are. It also 
tells me how strong are the oaks in this Chamber who have stood against 
the wind. We have scored a real victory for the American people and 
light a roman candle for the dignity of working people everywhere.


                  Does the President Need Fast Track?

  This and preceding administrations have negotiated over 220 trade 
agreements without fast-track authority. The Uruguay round of the GATT 
proceeded for several years without fast track. The Clinton 
administration is currently negotiating a multilateral agreement on 
investment without fast-track authority. The United States-Israel Free 
Trade Agreement was negotiated without fast track. The President has 
constitutional authority to negotiate with other sovereign nations. The 
only reason the President needs fast track is so he doesn't have to 
seriously consult or negotiate with Congress.
  Think about it. Without fast track, U.S. trade negotiators will be in 
a stronger position vis-a-vis our trading partners if they have to sell 
the deal to Congress. The suggestion that our trading partners won't 
deal with us without fast track is ludicrous. If President Clinton can 
say, ``I want to do this, but Congress is insisting on inclusion of 
these provisions . . .'' doesn't that strengthen his hand?
  Congress certainly is capable of dealing with extremely complex 
legislation. Each year, we pass 13 highly complex appropriation 
measures, thousands of pages in length. Each year, we adopt a defense 
authorization bill thousands of pages in length. And hasn't Congress 
dealt with budget and tax measures thousands of pages in length, 
controlling hundreds of billions of dollars in spending and taxes?


                  Making It There and Selling It Here

  The United States represents about 4 percent of the world's 
population and enjoys about 22 percent of the world's products. To 
maintain our standard-of-living, it is argued, we have to sell to the 
other 96 percent of the world's population. But of the world's 6 
billion potential consumers, 80 percent are only window shoppers, low-
wage workers or subsistence farmers. Under the fast track agreements, 
we don't sell a net positive balance of consumer goods to other 
countries; we send capital and capital goods out of our country where 
goods are assembled by low-wage workers often employed for ``hunger 
wages,'' and then re-exported back to the United States and sold here 
at high prices--U-turn goods. Mexico is the prime example. NAFTA 
assured that Mexico would become one of the primary low-wage export 
platforms to the United States market, presently surpassed only by 
China. Nearly 3,000 plants have located just south of the border and 
they are called ``in-bond'' plants. I agree; labor is held in bondage. 
Since NAFTA, the Mexican domestic market has shrunk but its export 
market, primarily to the United States, has expanded dramatically. This 
process keeps putting severe downward pressure on United States living 
standards. If Europe and Japan maintain positive trade balances with 
Mexico, why is it only the United States that keeps digging a hole of 
debt with Mexico deeper and deeper? And with China? And with Canada?


                        Health, Safety and Drugs

  What does a fast-tracked trade policy mean for the quality of 
American life? Danger. Since 1990, food-borne outbreaks in the United 
States from imported food have included: shigellosis from imported 
green onions; salmonella from imported cantaloupe and imported alfalfa 
seeds; cyclospora from imported raspberries; and cholera from imported 
coconut milk. In Michigan earlier this year, more than 200 cases of 
hepatitis A were associated with frozen strawberries imported from 
Mexico and illegally labeled as United States grown. Strawberries 
imported from Mexico were found to have an 18.4 percent violation rate 
for illegal levels of pesticides in 1993. A 47-count indictment was 
brought against a California firm for fraudulently labeling Mexican 
grown strawberries as United States grown. On May 29 the Centers for 
Disease Control reported that imported raspberries were the cause of a 
1996 outbreak of hepatitis.
  Yet inspection of produce for pesticides on imported food has been 
reduced. The absolute number of imported food sample inspections 
decreased from 6,463 in 1993, to 5,448 in 1994, and to 5,032 in 1995--a 
decrease of 28 percent over that period. Inspection of imported Mexican 
produce declined from 1,820 samples in 1993 to 1723 samples in 1995 
even though imports doubled. The food provisions of NAFTA constrain 
food safety and agricultural disease and pest inspections. NAFTA 
specifically forbids imported food from being inspected at the border 
more thoroughly than the same domestic commodity.
  Moreover, under NAFTA we have not just opened our southern border to 
unsafe food. We have thrown the door open for the importation of the 
illegal drugs that degrade and destroy our communities. Key provisions 
for cross-border trucking have been relaxed resulting in Mexico 
becoming the primary route for the importation of drugs into the United 
States. The vast majority of trucks entering the United States from 
Mexico enter without inspection.
  During the closing moments of the NAFTA debate in 1993 when it was 
clear that our position was on the short end of the votes, we promised 
the American people during that singularly compelling moment here in 
the House that our fight would continue in the tomorrows to come--a 
fight against the narrow visions of the elites and Wall Street who 
would abandon those who work in our factories, on our farms, and on 
Main Street. We have continued valiantly in our efforts, and we can be 
proud as we vote here today. For it is in our hearts, that reside the 
truest principles of democracy, prosperity, and respect for ordinary 
people of extraordinary spirit. Our victory gives hope to those in our 
world who struggle for democracy, for labor rights, for human health 
and safety in the workplace, and for the right to speak out as we have 
spoken out today.
  When the vote on GATT occurred, we said when that vote was over, it 
would not be over. Its consequences would be felt for years to come. As 
a result of the elections of 1994 and 1996, we have been joined by many 
new Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, who fought to be 
our new partners and in that fight to forge a new American responsible 
trade policy. These colleagues did not share our experience as we 
battled NAFTA in 1993 and GATT in 1994. But they have heard the will of 
the American people as they campaigned for the seats they now hold, and 
they have made the difference.
  Out of these many battles in a long struggle has come a deep 
awareness on the part of the American people that trade and jobs are 
inextricably linked and that people matter more than profits. On the 
floor of this House, we not hear the voices of those who bear the pain 
of NAFTA, the indignities of GATT. We must now proceed to 
constructively fashion a trade policy that moves America and the world 
into an era of trade-linked advancement for people or ordinary means.
  I said in 1993 and again in 1994 during the GATT debate--also 
scheduled after midnight during a lame duck session of Congress--that 
working people would remember those votes. I say again America's 
working families will remember this vote as well. Let history show it 
was here, together, in the people's House where the journey began to 
enshrine in trade laws the highest ideals of a free people. Let us 
inspire a world where the majority long for a better way of life along 
the path that leads, not back to the 19th century, but forward to the 
21st.

                          ____________________