[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 161 (Monday, December 15, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2418-E2419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO THE REPUBLICAN FAST TRACK PROPOSAL

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 13, 1997

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have always been a protrade, 
proenvironment, and prolabor Democrat. I do not appreciate being placed 
in a position where I must oppose a free trade bill, in this case H.R. 
2621, the Republican fast track trade proposal. I must oppose this 
particular proposal because it does not include the elementary steps 
that might have made it acceptable. We could achieve the very same 
results that H.R. 2621 seeks with a more balanced bill that does not 
sacrifice the interests of workers here and abroad and environmental 
quality as well.
  I believe strongly in free trade. For those who do not, I would 
simply say that we have no choice today except to compete in world 
markets if we are to continue to create high-paying, private sector 
jobs and to sustain economic growth. However, there are good and ample 
precedents on how to move to broader,

[[Page E2419]]

freer trade without leaving substantial numbers of our residents 
jobless and workers abroad without basic labor rights. Confronted with 
a similar situation, the European Economic Community, now the European 
Union [EU], adopted an aggressive, transitional economic program to 
bring developing countries, such as Portugal and Spain, to the point 
where these less developed countries would not be sacrificed for free 
trade. This transitional aid enabled them to be full partners not only 
to their benefit but to the greater benefit of free trade in the entire 
EU.
  Supporters of fast track like to point out that since 1992, over 11 
million new jobs have been created, that of these, 1.5 million have 
been high-wage, export-related jobs, and that much of this job growth 
can be attributed to passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
[NAFTA]. By the administration's assessment, NAFTA has created up to 
160,000 new jobs. What supporters of fast track conveniently ignore is 
that, at the same time, we have lost jobs in other sectors of our 
economy. The Department of Labor has estimated that NAFTA has led 
directly to the loss of about 150,000 jobs and has found that two-
thirds of Americans who lose their jobs because of foreign trade end up 
with work that pays less than they earned before. Clearly, this is not 
a case where a rising tide lifts all boats; while some are cruising 
along, others are sinking. Transitional assistance has mitigated this 
inevitable adverse effect in the EU. H.R. 2621 simply leaves the 
hapless victims to fend for themselves against economic forces they 
cannot possibly control on their own. Precedents such as the EU 
assistance, however, show that these forces can be controlled 
consistent with free trade. Where is the comparable assistance in H.R. 
2621?
  How wasteful and unnecessary to divide Americans further into 
economic winners and losers. That is exactly what the Republican fast 
track proposal will do. In order to ensure that free trade also results 
in fair trade, fast track must authorize the President to negotiate 
strong and enforceable labor and environmental standards within the 
main body of any future trade agreement. Otherwise, businesses have 
shown that they cannot resist the temptation to move their 
manufacturing facilities to take advantage of low wages and lax 
enforcement of environmental standards and labor rights in developing 
countries. This fast track bill is fundamentally flawed because it 
allows American manufacturers to exploit foreign workers, to the 
ultimate detriment of workers here at home. The failure of this fast 
track proposal to establish protection of worker rights as a central 
tenet of U.S. trade policy is one of the important reasons why I oppose 
H.R. 2621.
  I am particularly alarmed at how the current fast track proposal 
would allow U.S. manufacturers to enter into a race to the bottom on 
the environment. This fast track bill fails to ensure that trading 
partners compete fairly by requiring all parties to vigorously enforce 
environmental laws. Indeed, I am puzzled at the administration's 
failure to insist that environmental issues be addressed squarely in 
international trade agreements--that position only sends a signal to 
the world that the United States is not really serious about preserving 
the environment and will undermine our negotiating position at the 
upcoming Kyoto summit on global warming. We have fought too hard and 
come too far to see our fragile environmental progress unravel in trace 
agreements.
  Until fast track explicitly addresses worker rights here and in the 
countries covered by trade agreements and equally so the substantial 
environmental issues that beg to be addressed, I cannot support it. I 
ask the administration and supporters here in Congress to go back to 
the drawing board. We can do much better.

                          ____________________