[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12631-S12633]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          FAST-TRACK AUTHORITY

 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a matter of 
utmost importance to our Nation--granting the President fast-track 
authority for global trade agreements for the next 5 years.
  I have long opposed extending fast-track authority to the executive 
branch on the grounds that it removes all possibility of perfecting 
trade agreements which have wide-ranging impacts on many sectors of our 
economy. And nothing I have seen in recent history has changed my mind.
  We are being asked to rubber stamp not just one agreement, but any 
trade agreement that may come along, whether in South America, Asia, or 
anywhere else in the world. We are contemplating letting bureaucrats 
and other unelected interests negotiate America's future in the new 
global economy. And if history is any indication, we would be making a 
grievous mistake.
  Experience is a wonderful teacher--just look at NAFTA. What I have 
learned is that NAFTA has not been the job boon it was advertised to 
be; that the trade deficit has continued to explode under NAFTA, that 
too many good paying jobs have already been sacrificed on the altar of 
so-called fair trade, and that we have serious difficulties in 
enforcing the agreements we've already made.
  That is not a particularly encouraging track record--certainly not 
one that should inspire us to hand over the trade agreement keys to the 
White House. To the contrary, it raises grave concerns as to where the 
administration wants to take the country in the new world of 
globalization.
  That is why I believe the President is obliged to do more than just 
say that he needs fast-track authority. The gap between what he said 
would happen under NAFTA and what has actually happened makes it even 
more essential that he explain to us precisely how he would address the 
problems that already exist, and what his vision is for the future 
should he be granted such sweeping authority. Because frankly, the 
administration has not spelled out why it needs this authority, nor 
what it will mean for the Nation.
  Unfortunately, I can venture a fairly good guess as to what it will 
mean, based on history. The chart behind me represents the U.S. 
international merchandise trade from 1947 until last year. For 25 out 
of the 27 years preceding fast-track authority in 1974, the United 
States ran a trade surplus. Then, after 1975, the bottom started 
falling out.
  This sea of red ink behind me not only represents millions of dollars 
in deficit--over $190 billion last year ($191.2 billion)--but lost jobs 
and shattered lives. For each billion dollars in trade deficit, another 
20,000 people are displaced from their jobs--according to the Foreign 
Trade Division of the Census Bureau, that number is approaching 3.8 
million. Every $50,000 in trade deficit is one lost job.
  We hear time and time again that enormous opportunities will be 
created for the American people through trade agreements the President 
can negotiate if he has fast-track authority. But if the agreements 
already negotiated are any indication, it's time to put the brakes on, 
not hit the accelerator. Because working Americans can't afford any 
more ``opportunities'' like this.
  Right now, each week, the United States borrows from abroad or sells 
assets worth $3 billion to pay for our trade losses. All across the 
country, workers are taking cuts in pay--or worse, taking home pink 
slips. And we are left to wonder how trade agreements that had promised 
so much have delivered so little. Just look at the lessons of NAFTA.
  NAFTA, we were told, would improve our trade deficit with Canada and 
Mexico. So what's the reality? Before NAFTA in 1993, we had a $1.7 
billion surplus with Mexico. As of last year, it's now a $16.2 billion 
deficit. Before NAFTA we had a $10 billion trade deficit with Canada. 
After only 3 years of NAFTA, we had a $23 billion deficit. And during 
those 3 years under NAFTA, our combined merchandise trade deficits with 
Canada and Mexico have grown 433 percent, as indicated by this chart 
showing the tremendous downward turn taken after NAFTA.
  We all know that, with trade agreements, there are winners and there 
are losers. But a quick review of the current NAFTA standings shows 
that, in sports terms, we are well below .500. The White House has 
claimed credit for 90,000 to 160,000 American jobs from NAFTA. Yet the 
Economic Policy Institute has issued a report that there are jobs 
losses in all 50 States because of NAFTA, more than 390,000 jobs 
eliminated since NAFTA took effect in 1994.
  Considering our experience prior to 1994, we can ill afford these 
kind of results. An October EPI briefing paper states that in the 15 
years preceding NAFTA the U.S. goods and services trade deficit 
eliminated a total of 2.4 million job opportunities, 2.2 million in the 
manufacturing sector alone. That means 83 percent of the total job 
decline was in the manufacturing sector.
  For example, in my home State of Maine, between 1980 and the 
inception of NAFTA the Maine footwear industry--the largest in the 
Nation--lost over 9,000 jobs to countries like Mexico because our 
Government sat on its hands in spite of recommended action by the 
International Trade Commission. And in the past three years alone, 
there have been significant losses in the textile and shoe industries--
over 8,000 people have lost their jobs. I have already witnessed too 
many hardworking people lose their livelihood for me to risk more 
American jobs.
  I am unwilling to trade well-paying jobs with benefits for lower 
paying ones--but that's precisely what's happened under our ill-
conceived trade agreements. As the trade deficit and globalization of 
U.S. industries have grown, more quality jobs have been lost to imports 
than have been gained in the lower paying sectors that are experiencing 
rapid export growth. Increased import shares have displaced almost 
twice as many high-paying, high-skill jobs than increased exports have 
created.
  Of course, NAFTA has created some good jobs. But the fact that 
increased imports have caused a large trade deficit tell us that more 
high-paying jobs were lost than gained in the push for more trade.
  Those deficits--and the path the United States is going down--are 
well illustrated by this chart which shows three roads that have 
diverged under the previous reign of fast-track authority, first 
instituted in 1974. Up to that point, Japanese, German, and United 
States merchandise trade was humming along essentially in balance.

[[Page S12632]]

  Beginning almost at the start of 1975, however, we clearly see the 
United States plunging into deficit, while Germany and Japan both enjoy 
a trade surplus. To paraphrase Robert Frost, the road less traveled 
certainly has made all the difference--in this case, not for the 
better. In other words, under NAFTA as well as other previous trade 
agreements, there have been many more losers than winners.
  So we must ask the President: How do you explain the job losses? How 
do you explain the trade deficit explosion? And what is it going to 
mean for the future of the country? The affect of NAFTA on these issues 
was seriously miscalculated--what assurances do we have that the 
administration's record will be better in the next 5 years, after 
multiple agreements?
  We also need assurances that agreements negotiated will be agreements 
fulfilled. Unfortunately, after we have negotiated past trade 
agreements, I do not believe that the United States has aggressively 
pursued enforcement of the elimination of trade barriers with other 
countries, whether they are tariff or nontariff barriers. Why then 
would we grant this authority on a broad basis for whatever agreements 
may be negotiated by the administration?
  The American Chamber of Commerce in Japan summed it up best in a 
study earlier this year concluding that ``it has often been more 
important for the two governments to reach agreements and declare 
victory than to undertake the difficult task of monitoring the 
agreements to ensure their implementation produces results.''
  The bottom line is, long after the signing ceremonies and handshakes 
are forgotten, these trade agreements continue to affect lives on a 
daily basis. We must remember that our responsibilities don't end with 
the ratification of our trade agreements--they are just beginning.
  Unfortunately, I can only assume from my personal experience that 
this is a lesson not yet learned by the administration. What other 
conclusion is there when the NAFTA clean-up plan for the United States-
Mexico border has generated only 1 percent of the promised funding? 
What other conclusion is there when other countries continue to violate 
our laws by dumping goods in the United States below cost and because 
of extensive subsidies?
  The Atlantic salmon farmers of Maine are a case in point. While we 
debate giving the President greater authority to close more trade 
deals, they have a case pending with the Department of Commerce because 
subsidized, low-priced Atlantic salmon from Chile--which provides at 
least 25 different subsidies to its producers, I might add--are being 
dumped in the United States. And while this situation remains 
unresolved, we have lost more than 50 percent of our salmon aquaculture 
industry in Maine, while Chile's imports into the United States have 
risen 75 percent and United States salmon prices have dropped by 30 
percent.
  So forgive me if I am at a complete loss as to how bringing Chile 
into NAFTA will create more and better jobs, and a higher standard of 
living for the hard working people of Maine.
  And I could not talk about empty trade promises without mentioning 
Maine's potato industry. For years I have been raising the issue of an 
unfair trade barrier with Canada on bulk shipments of potatoes exported 
to Canada, a trade barrier that is in violation of the National 
Treatment Principle of article III, paragraph 4 of the GATT, to be 
specific. This provision requires that GATT/WTO member countries treat 
imported products the same as goods of local origin with respect to all 
laws, regulations, and requirements that affect the sale, purchase, 
transportation, distribution, and use of the goods.
  In December of 1994, USTR's then Trade Representative Micky Kantor 
said he would be filing a trade case with the GATT-WTO to overturn 
Canada's policy of bulk easements. So what has happened so far? 
Nothing.
  Almost 2 years later, in September of 1996, I wrote to President 
Clinton to express my belief that we had waited long enough, to urge 
him to live up to the USTR commitment, and to proceed with a trade case 
on bulk easements. One week later, USTR's Charlene Barshefsky called me 
to let me know that serious bilateral consultations on Canadian trade 
practices would begin.
  These talks lead nowhere--in fact, the USTR then actually backtracked 
on filing a trade case. Two months later, the ITC was asked to 
investigate. They did, and in July of this year, issued a report, which 
stated, and I quote: ``Canadian regulations restrict imports of bulk 
shipments of fresh potatoes for processing or repacking.'' The report 
also stated, ``the United States maintains no such restrictions.''
  So where are we today? Well, this past week, the U.S. Trade 
Representative once again promised that bilateral talks on bulk 
easements will begin no later than March 1998. It looks to me, as Yogi 
Berra once said, like deja vu all over again. Is this how the 
administration plans to handle enforcement for future trade agreements? 
Last week, the President asked the American people to give him the 
benefit of the doubt on fast track. I believe we need the benefit of 
enforcement of existing agreements first.
  Where are our strict and mandatory enforcement provisions when our 
trading partners bring injury to our domestic workers? We need to 
provide the enforcement to ensure full reciprocity in market access and 
reduction of export subsidies--enforcement and oversight which, up 
until now, has been lacking.
  Yet, we are told that specific concerns should be weighed against the 
broader economic, political and social aspects of NAFTA expansion. We 
are told that, overall, no major negative impact is expected if we 
expand the trade agreement with Chile--except of course for industries 
like fish, forestry, and fruit, all of which are important to the 
economic stability of my home State of Maine.
  That is why I am not prepared to give up the right to seek assurances 
that these industries won't be decimated by a flawed trade agreement. 
The stakes are far too high for Congress to abrogate its 
responsibilities to the bureaucrats and special interests.
  Free trade, as we have seen, doesn't work unless we have agreements 
that also provide for fair trade, and Congress must have the right to 
exercise its responsibility to ensure fair trade in each and every 
agreement that comes down the road. The Senate must be more than just a 
debating society for global trade issues that affect each and every one 
of us.
  Our country negotiated trade agreements for nearly 200 years before 
fast-track authority was first granted in 1974, when trade was carved 
out for an exception unlike any other kind of treaty. We continue to 
negotiate treaties and agreements on everything from chemical weapons 
to extradition to tuna-dolphin without fast-track authority. And I have 
heard no rational explanation of why trade should be treated 
differently.
  I certainly do not believe Congress should approve fast-track 
authority on the basis of fear that the United States will not have a 
seat at the trade bargaining table. There is no question we are living 
in an era dominated by global economics and trade, but at the same time 
we are an economic super power with an 8.3 trillion dollar economy and 
203 million willing buyers--an attractive market to say the least.
  I believe it would continue to be in the best interests of nations 
across the globe to negotiate with the United States--and those of us 
in Congress are committed to crafting mutually beneficial trade 
agreements. I think all of us in Congress understand full well the 
realities of trade as we approach the new millennium. We must also 
understand, however, that our trade record under fast track mandates 
that Congress have a strong voice in the process.
  Mr. President, we are elected to deliberate and vote on the major 
issues of our day. Well, what could be more important than trade 
agreements that will directly affect hard working Americans and their 
families?
  It is imperative that we not relinquish our right to have a voice in 
these agreements. I don't want to see a repeat of what happened during 
the summer of 1993 during negotiations on NAFTA side agreements, when 
United States negotiators, clearly under tremendous pressure to reach 
agreement on the outstanding issues and conclude the pact in time for a 
January vote, let Canada and Mexico off the hook on a number of 
different issues. We need better oversight, more discussion and debate, 
not less, because we stand at a very important juncture.

[[Page S12633]]

  A poignant story out of New England illustrates where we are at the 
end of the 20th century, and points up the failures of past agreements.
  Two years ago, Malden Mills, a textile mill in Massachusetts, burned 
to the ground, leaving thousands unemployed and putting 300 more jobs 
in jeopardy at the Bridgton Knitting Mills in Maine. In the wake of the 
fire, the mill's owner, Aaron Feuerstein, had several attractive 
choices, including rebuilding in another state or country with lower 
wages, anywhere from Texas to Thailand. Or he simply could have retired 
after four decades of running Malden Mills, founded by his grandfather 
more than 90 years ago.
  Instead, last month, Mr. Feurstein opened a new, state-of-the-art 
textile mill, and brought 2,630 very grateful Americans back to work. 
And the rebuilding of the plant has become a symbol of loyalty to 
employees and to an entire community. Mr. Feuerstein's actions are 
admirable and all of America rightfully extended their appreciation to 
a man who chose the difficult path over the easy, and perhaps more 
profitable.
  But let's step back for a moment and ask ourselves why this story 
became a national sensation. The sad fact is, it stood out so glaringly 
because it is the exception to the rule. The idea that American textile 
jobs would be kept in the United States when they could easily be 
shipped overseas is news because it hardly ever happens that way 
anymore.
  Mr. President, I don't want to continue down this path, but I fear we 
will if we don't retain our congressional right to speak out against 
trade agreements that aren't in our best interest.
  We have an obligation to all those who have already lost good jobs to 
bad trade agreements, and to all those who are in danger of becoming 
displaced in the future, to take the time to do it right. And the 
President has an obligation to fully explain how the wrongs of the past 
will be fixed, and why the future will be different. This he simply has 
not done.
  We stand poised to begin a new era of prosperity in the global 
marketplace, but I do not believe that fast track is the way to get us 
there, I do not believe the President has made his case for this broad 
authority, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this fast-track 
legislation.

                          ____________________