[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 161 (Monday, December 15, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENT AUTHORITIES ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. THOMAS J. MANTON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 13, 1997

  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2621, 
the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Authorities Act. The debate over fast 
track is not a debate over whether the United States should engage in 
world trade. Clearly, we should. This debate is about whether our 
Government will finally adopt trade rules that will put the interests 
of working families first instead of the rights of corporations to make 
huge profits at their expense.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that trade agreements must not be considered 
in isolation of the consequences which might befall workers and the 
environment. Unfortunately, the bill before us does not require that 
future trade agreements ensure progress toward ensuring workers' rights 
and enhancing environmental protections. Instead, the bill limits the 
labor and environmental issues which can be considered under fast track 
authority to those that are ``directly related to trade and decrease 
market opportunities for U.S. exports or distort U.S. trade.'' This 
wording attempts to hide the continued disregard for American workers 
behind carefully constructed language that allows trade negotiators to 
pay lip-service to environmental, consumer, and labor issues without 
requiring them to do anything about them. Instead, labor and 
environmental issues will be ignored or relegated to NAFTA-like side 
agreements which have proven to be wholly inadequate and have made 
implementation of these provisions virtually unenforceable in the past.
  In addition, this fast track legislation grants the President wider 
authority over trade than given to any previous administration since 
its inception. And, while lawmakers could vote either up or down on a 
specific proposal, they would be stripped of their powers to amend, 
revise, correct, or improve complex, and far-reaching trade agreements, 
effectively denying Congress its constitutional right to regulate 
foreign commerce.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration has promised that if granted fast 
track authority, they will use it to expand NAFTA to Chile as the first 
step toward creation of a Free Trade Zone of the Americas. But, after 3 
years of the NAFTA experience, the evidence shows that as both a trade 
agreement and a trade model, NAFTA has been a failure. We have seen a 
trade surplus with Mexico transformed into a $16 billion deficit, part 
of a total United States trade deficit with Canada and Mexico of $48.3 
billion dollars. We have seen a net loss of U.S. jobs in all 50 States 
totaling more than 420,000, including 20,000 in my home State of New 
York alone.
  And, recently Mr. Speaker, the negative effects of NAFTA have struck 
my own Seventh Congressional District of New York particularly hard. 
Swingline, a manufacturer of staples and staple products located in 
Long Island City, recently announced plans to close down their plant 
and move their operations to Mexico. The Swingline plant has operated 
in New York for the last 75 years, including the last 40 in Long Island 
City. Swingline has long been a fixture in the Long Island City 
community, employing more than 400 workers, a majority of whom have 
only known that job their entire lives.
  In addition, we have seen increased Mexican imports, coupled with 
restrictive inspection requirements and inadequate funding, combining 
to overwhelm border inspection systems. This has resulted in an 
increased volume of tainted foods coming into the United States, most 
recently demonstrated with the outbreak of 130 cases of Hepatitis-A in 
Michigan which were traced to strawberries illegally imported from 
Mexico. We have also seen an increase in unsafe Mexican carrier traffic 
traveling over United States highways, as NAFTA has provided for 
neither the financial support nor regulatory incentives to bring 
Mexican standards up to United States levels. And, Mr. Speaker, we have 
seen an increase in the flow of illegal drugs from Mexico as NAFTA's 
new flood of truckloads of imports has provided the means by which 
these illegal contraband may enter the United States undetected. Recent 
State Department estimates show that now 70 percent of cocaine, 80 
percent of marijuana, and 30 percent of heroin enter the United States 
through Mexico, up significantly from pre-NAFTA levels.
  Mr. Speaker, fast track supporters would have you believe that 
without this authority, the United States will be shut out from 
entering into lucrative trade deals in South America. But this is just 
not true. Indeed, in recent years trade between the United States and 
South America has moved from a deficit to a healthy surplus, even 
though we do not have any NAFTA-type free trade agreements with these 
countries. And, a lack of fast track authority has also not prevented 
the current administration from having negotiated more than 200 trade 
agreements with other countries since 1993.
  Mr. Speaker, as I stated before, the debate before us is not whether 
America trades with the world, but what are the rules under which that 
trade takes place. Workers rights, environmental protections, and food 
safety must have a place on the negotiating agenda for any trade 
agreement. Unfortunately, this legislation before us does not 
adequately provide for their consideration. Therefore, I urge all of my 
colleagues to reject this fast track legislation and to give all future 
trade agreements and our overall trade policy the careful scrutiny they 
require and deserve.

                          ____________________