[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 118 (Wednesday, September 9, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1673-E1674]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, AND JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 5, 1998

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4276) making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest powers wielded by 
every American today is the power to choose how we spend our money. In 
the American marketplace--the strongest economy in the world--the 
manner in which we make our purchasing decisions is a vote. It's a vote 
of confidence in a product and a vote of support for the way a company 
treats its employees, services its customers, or protects the 
environment.
  That's not a power to be taken lightly. It reminds corporations that 
we, as consumers, have a choice. We can reward them for good conduct, 
or punish them by purchasing from their competitors.
  The problem is that so-called ``free trade'' agreements take away 
that choice. Not only do they take it away from you and me, but they 
take it away from our states, counties, and cities. And although the 
opponents of this amendment claim that it challenges the balance of 
power established by the Constitution, all that the amendment strives 
to do is re-establish the power to choose how we spend our money.
  In 1996, the Massachusetts state legislature overwhelmingly endorsed 
a law prohibiting the state from doing any procurement business with 
companies that invest in Burma, whose abominable human rights record we 
are all familiar with. The taxpayers of Massachusetts made it clear 
that they wanted their elected

[[Page E1674]]

representatives to use taxpayer dollars to support corporations for 
whom human dignity meant more than an extra tenth of a percent on this 
quarter's earnings.
  In doing so, Massachusetts became the first state to enact such a 
law, joining dozens of counties, towns and cities nationwide where 
doing business with repressive governments is simply not acceptable. As 
a result, major firms--including Apple Computer, Hewlett-Packard, and 
Motorola--have severed their ties to Burma.
  While the people of Massachusetts broadly support the action taken by 
their state, the European Union and Japan have filed a World Trade 
Organization challenge against Massachusetts. The Administration--which 
promised us, and continues to promise us, that trade agreements do not 
undermine states' rights--has been quietly pressuring Massachusetts 
legislators to repeal the law.
  A coalition of 600 of the largest multinational corporations, for 
whom profits mean far more than human rights, has filed suit against 
Massachusetts. These are the same corporations who have fought all 
efforts to keep consumers informed about the effects of their purchases 
by opposing even the simplest requirements to label fresh produce with 
its country of origin, or to establish labels ensuring customers that 
products were made without child or sweatshop labor. The claim that the 
Massachusetts law, and others like it, are unconstitutional.
  Since when is the right of consumers to choose how to spend their 
money unconstitutional? Since NAFTA? Since GATT?
  Like many of my colleagues, I would prefer to act on these issues by 
repealing and renegotiating trade agreements to ensure that human 
rights, workers, and the environment are protected to the same extent 
as intellectual property rights and corporate profits. I would prefer 
to see the impacts of these agreements on states' rights and consumer's 
rights clearly defined before we commit ourselves. But we all know 
that's not going to happen. This amendment is a very small step in that 
direction.
  We owe it to the people of Massachusetts, San Francisco, New York 
City, Ann Arbor, Palo Alto, Chapel Hill, and dozens of other American 
towns with similar laws, to uphold their rights as consumers and their 
belief in ``what is good'' over ``what is profitable.'' I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.

                          ____________________