[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2346-E2347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          OPPOSITION TO FAST-TRACK LEGISLATION IN CURRENT FORM

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TIM ROEMER

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 13, 1997

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, in light of the recent decision to postpone 
consideration of the fast-track bill, I would like to make clear my 
position in opposition to this legislation in its current form. While I 
believe in the notion of free trade and voted for MFN for China and 
GATT, I also strongly believe in fair trade and our insistence on trade 
parity.
  I would vote against this bill, but I want to make it clear that I 
will support free and fair trade in the future. I support expanding 
U.S. export opportunities and our position as the world's leader in 
trade. I have consistently supported, as I do now, efforts to expand 
fair and free trade. For example, I just recently voted for the United 
States-Caribbean Trade Partnership Act, also known as CBI.
  I did not support NAFTA when it was considered by the House of 
Representatives in 1993, and I am proud of my vote. I believe that this 
fast-track bill, as written, will only aggravate NAFTA's failed 
legacy--larger trade deficits, expanding jobs losses, and rapidly 
declining standards of living. Bad trade deals like NAFTA have 
destroyed good jobs and go a long way to lure businesses to where it is 
cheaper to pay their employees and cheaper to meet safety requirements.
  Bad trade deals include the 1995 automotive trade agreement with 
South Korea ``Memorandum of Understanding to Increase Market Access for 
Passenger Vehicles in Korea.'' South Korea simply failed to abide by 
the agreement to open up its markets. Bad trade deals like NAFTA are 
running up our $114 billion trade deficit. This deficit exacerbates job 
losses. It is eroding our automotive industry and chipping away at the 
number of high-paying jobs, including many quality jobs in Indiana's 
Third Congressional District. Our trade deficit with Mexico and Canada 
jumped from $11 billion to $39 billion after NAFTA passed. We should 
not agree to all trade deals. And most trade deals need constant 
vigilance. We must engage in trade but then follow through with 
verification, implementation, and enforcement.
  Despite our healthy economy, there are still too many people in our 
country earning only $5 or $6 per hour, and often working a second job 
to raise their families. Families are working more hours at more jobs 
while just keeping pace or sometimes falling behind. Too many families 
have little or no time to spare for volunteer work or even time to 
raise their children. This causes social and developmental problems 
profoundly affecting our schools and communities. We must reach back 
and bring

[[Page E2347]]

our working people along with us in a rapidly changing economy involved 
in global trade. This includes education and worker training programs 
rather than merely giving trade adjustment assistance that is more 
similar to temporary welfare.
  Rather than expanding a bad trade policy like NAFTA, we should 
strengthen existing trade policies with tougher enforcement provisions 
like Super 301, which is used to force our trading partners to open 
their markets to American goods. So-called Super 301 gives the 
President authority to challenge foreign barriers to our exports, and 
helps us fight unjustifiable and unreasonable foreign trade practices. 
The Federal Maritime Commission recently invoked Super 301 to impose 
$100,000 entry fee sanctions on each ship entering a United State port 
from Japan, the second largest supplier of United States imports. These 
sanctions were promptly delivered in response to Japan's failure to 
address anticompetitive maritime practices. This needs to be used more 
often.
  Section 301 has also helped stifle China's aggressive trade 
practices, particularly with respect to intellectual property piracy. 
We should also use Super 301 against Korea, which has violated the 1995 
automotive trade pact by imposing more restrictive policies, including 
new taxes on imports and even the threat of conducting tax audits of 
anyone who buys or leases an imported automobile. We should require 
that more trade agreements are enforced under Super 301. It is a proven 
weapon in the U.S. trade arsenal to open markets in the most forceful 
manner provided by U.S. law.
  Additionally, we should offset the side-effects of our trade deals 
with education and training for our workers. These trade deals need to 
provide more job retraining and community-preserving programs. For 
example, this fast-track bill should have included pilot projects 
establishing new education and employment programs for displaced 
workers and tax relief for displaced workers. We cannot be satisfied 
with training adjustment assistance programs which simply treat workers 
like temporary welfare recipients. We should also be more forceful in 
arguing that our trading partners provide assistance to development 
banks to pay for their own job training for women, anti-child labor 
programs and environmental cleanup.
  Since NAFTA was enacted, we have entered into 200 new trade 
agreements without fast track. We must consider the merits of each new 
trade agreement and its impact on our workers, consumers, and 
taxpayers. Each trade deal should be considered with careful oversight 
to insist on fair trade but enhanced opportunity for free trade. And we 
should search out new markets to help American farmers, workers, and 
businesses to compete fairly in order to sell their products abroad. 
But we should not tie our hands to far-reaching trade agreements pushed 
by international interests. Rather, we should ensure that fair trade 
and sound agreements are at the heart of our trade policy. Our 
prosperity and our ability to benefit from trade agreements will depend 
not just on the quantity of that trade, but the quality and enforcement 
of the agreement.
  I support free trade and I know that the United States needs to trade 
to be competitive in the global economy. More important, I want U.S. 
businesses to enjoy greater access to foreign markets. But free trade 
must be a two-way street. The trade agreements we enter into must 
ensure that foreign tariff barriers are removed in addition to opening 
our markets. Currently, our trade policy focuses too much on providing 
access to our markets. This is not reciprocal trade, as the name of 
this fast-track bill implies.
  As some new Democrats profess, we need a new trade policy. Many on 
the Republican side are pure free traders. We must establish the rules 
of fair trade, and those must give priority to more vigorous 
enforcement of super 301 provisions and penalties against countries 
which practice unfair trade. Our trade deals must encourage, but not 
mandate, other countries to comply with child labor standards, minimum 
wage requirements, and anti-pollution laws as they compete with foreign 
producers who do not. U.S. trade policy must reflect compliance with 
standards we know to be reasonable and fair. This should probably be a 
goal, not something we dictate and demand from other countries before 
we even negotiate with them.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, fast-track does not go far enough to 
encourage fair trade, but it does open our markets. This bill does not 
help our workers get education and training for a new career. It is not 
new trade policy, and I would encourage my colleagues to vote against 
this authorization.

                          ____________________