[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2372]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       FAST-TRACK TRADE AUTHORITY

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JERRY F. COSTELLO

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 13, 1997

  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that President Clinton and 
Speaker Gingrich have decided not to ask for a vote on fast track trade 
authority in 1997. I strongly opposed fast track authority. Fast track 
paves the way for trade agreements which would continue a disturbing 
trend in America: we used to make products in this country and export 
these superior goods abroad; but now, American companies use foreign 
labor in foreign countries to make the products they sell here. This 
legislation fails to address human rights, food safety, environmental 
regulations, or protect American workers. This, Mr. Speaker, is the 
worst kind of public policy.
  Presumably, one of the main reasons for fast track authority is to 
expand the North American Free Trade Agreement {NAFTA}. After 3 years, 
NAFTA has cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs and failed to 
improve environmental conditions along the Mexican border. I did not 
support NAFTA then, and I will not support expanding it now.
  In light of recent cases of contaminated strawberries, raspberries, 
and beef, consumers are growing more concerned with the safety of the 
food we eat. Food-borne illness is on the rise around the world in part 
because of the ``globalization'' of the food supply. Imported food is 
over three times more likely to be contaminated with illegal pesticide 
residues than food grown in the United States. Stronger proconsumer 
language in any fast track legislation would correct this oversight, 
however, the provisions of the proposed fast track authority would have 
greatly restricted the United States' ability to protect the public 
from unsafe food.
  I believe that trade agreements should be subject to moral and 
ethical standards. There are 1.3 billion people around the world living 
on less than $1 a day. The proposed fast track legislation did not 
include provisions to reduce child labor or decrease poverty and 
inequity throughout the developing world. U.S. trade policies and 
negotiations should seek to change this reality.
  This proposal also failed to address necessary environmental 
standards. Since the passage of NAFTA, the degradation of the 
environment along our border with Mexico has escalated. By not 
requiring other nations to increase their environmental standards, we 
are putting American products, which are subject to stronger 
environmental rules, at a disadvantage in the competitive marketplace.
  Labor rights have been a primary U.S. trade negotiating objectives 
since the 1988 Omnibus Trade Act. Unfortunately, this proposal provided 
absolutely no protection for American workers. NAFTA resulted in a loss 
of almost 17,000 jobs in Illinois and 420,000 jobs nationwide. Workers 
have reduced bargaining power under this agreement as employers use 
threats of moving jobs to lower wage-paying nations in order to lower 
worker contract demands. Unlike fast track authority that has existed 
in the past, this fast track proposal actually limited the labor 
provisions a trade agreement can address. There is no doubt about it: 
this proposal would have hurt American workers.

                          ____________________