[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 130 (Friday, September 25, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H8756-H8765]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2621, RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENT 
                        AUTHORITIES ACT OF 1997

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 553 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 553

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2621) to extend trade 
     authorities procedures with respect to reciprocal trade 
     agreements, and for other purposes. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and 
     Means now printed in the bill, modified by the amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. All points 
     of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) two hours of debate on the bill, as amended, 
     which shall be equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Frost), 
and pending that I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the global economy is a reality. One of the 
facts of American life in 1998 is that those of us who are here are all 
impacted by economic conditions that are out there, out in the big wide 
world.
  Singapore and Moscow may seem a long way from a kitchen table in 
Temple City, California, but when the couple sitting around it see 
their retirement savings hurt, when stock markets start falling in 
Asia, it hits very close to home. Sao Paulo or South Africa may be on 
the other side of the world from Peoria, Illinois, but when we cannot 
ship tractors from here to there cheaper then they can be built over 
there, workers in America's heartland get hurt. Geneva, Switzerland, 
may seem a long way from Topeka, Kansas, but if the United States is 
not able to lead the World Trade Organization negotiations on 
agriculture when they start next year because the U.S. Trade 
Representative is not armed with fast track, family farmers are going 
to see their livelihood damaged.
  Finally, working families in every town in America enjoy the best 
selection of products at the very best prices giving them the highest 
standard of living possible because we trade freely with people across 
the globe. That fact is at the heart of why the American economy works.
  This rule makes in order H.R. 2621, fast track legislation reported 
last year by the Committee on Ways and Means with very strong 
bipartisan support. As has been the case in past years, this is a 
closed rule. It provides for 2 hours of general debate divided equally 
between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed 
in the bill modified by the amendments printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
adopted. The rule waives all points of order against the bill, as 
amended, and provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, American families cannot afford for the President 
and the Congress to hide from trade policy. This debate is about the 
future. Will America lead the global economy into the 21st century, or 
will we sit and wait to see what kind of rules, trade rules, that the 
French, Australian, Brazilian and Indian negotiators think up?
  Debating trade policy is never easy in this House, the greatest 
institution of democracy the world has ever known. Election day is 
always too close. Divisions between interest groups are always too 
deep. Emotions from people who believe trade has done them wrong are 
always running too high.
  Well, today, Mr. Speaker, is the day to step up to the plate. I 
believe that when America leads Americans win. If we continue to lead 
the international economy, we have the best chance to control our 
destiny and bring about a future of hope and prosperity.

[[Page H8757]]

  The alternatives, whether in the form of the stagnant pleas for 
protectionism or the siren calls that next week, next month or next 
year are really the right time to debate this issue really appeal only 
to fear, fear of foreign workers, fear of foreign products, fear of 
losing, but most of all, Mr. Speaker, fear of the future.
  International markets are watching how the United States will respond 
to the challenges confronting the world economy. Eyes and ears are 
following this debate in every capital city in every financial market 
around the world. But they are not the audience that I care most about. 
Instead I hope that working families including the rank and file union 
members in cities and towns across America understand what is at stake 
here.
  Every mother needs to know that her ability to shop for the best 
products at the best prices from food and clothes to toys and 
televisions will be directly impacted by the outcome of this debate. 
Every American worker needs to understand that the ability to compete 
in export markets and sell American products abroad will be directly 
impacted by the fate of this fast track bill.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Speaker, the 21st Century demands some things from us. We need to 
educate and train our students and workers to be the best; we need to 
invest in tomorrow's technologies today; we need a Federal Government 
that is effective and efficient; we need private sector companies to 
create good jobs at good wages; and we need to make sure that 
international trade rules are written with American interests at heart.
  Mr. Speaker, the President called fast track one of his top 
legislative priorities when he stood right here in this chamber and 
delivered his State of the Union address. Today is the day to do the 
right thing for America, and to enact what it is the President asked 
for.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), for yielding me the customary half-hour.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill for which this rule provides consideration is 
just as bad as it was last November. In fact, besides a few little nips 
and tucks here and there, it is exactly the same bill. Last year that 
bill did not have enough votes to be brought to the floor, and today my 
Republican colleagues know that this bill will fail too.
  Since it is doomed from the start, Mr. Speaker, it is a fair question 
to ask, why it is on the floor today? Since it is not going anywhere, 
since it is going to fail, it is reasonable to ask, why we are spending 
precious legislative time doing this measure?
  Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the only reason that the Republican 
leadership is bringing this up today is because they want to try and 
embarrass the President. There is no other reason to bring it up.
  Let me say that President Clinton has not asked for fast track 
negotiating authority this year. He has said he will wait for it next 
year, but he does not want it brought up at this time. Even without 
this authority, the President has already negotiated some 200 new trade 
deals, so this is simply not something we need to be doing at this 
time. The common wisdom is that this bill will fail, and, with its 
failure, highlight some of the erosion of support for the President.
  Mr. Speaker, when, not if, this bill fails, it will mean absolutely 
nothing, other than it is a bad bill. It was a bad bill last November, 
and its appearance on the floor today is for nothing other than 
partisan show.
  It has no worker protections, no environmental protections, and no 
protections for human rights. It will open American markets to goods 
and services from countries with lax environmental and worker 
protections. In doing so, it will cost Americans their jobs, and, in 
far too many cases, it will cost Americans their health.
  There is a tragic aspect of what is happening today. Because of the 
cynicism of the Republican tactics, some Democrats who support the 
concept of fast track will vote ``no'' today. The result will be that 
fast track will fail by a larger margin than would have been true had 
the vote been taken last year, and the size of the defeat will make it 
more difficult for the two sides to come together with a compromise 
solution next spring.
  Let me be very clear on that point: The Republican majority is 
trading short-term political gain for long-term political loss. By 
their very act of forcing a vote today, they significantly lessen the 
chances that people of goodwill in both parties may be able to arrive 
at a satisfactory solution next year. Business community supporters of 
fast track should be furious that their supposed friends on the other 
side of the aisle have sold them down the river for short-term partisan 
gain.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. It is a sham. The bill is a 
sham, and the American people deserve some sincere legislation from 
their Congress.
  I also ask my colleagues to oppose the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to make in 
order the McKinney amendment to establish a corporate code of conduct 
as a principal trade negotiating objective and the Peterson amendment 
expanding the Committee on Agriculture's jurisdiction with respect to 
trade agreements.
  Vote no on the previous question, vote no on the resolution, vote no 
on the bill. Let us put this partisan nonsense out of the way and get 
on with the business of the people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield to my friend the gentleman from 
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, (Mr. Knollenberg), I would simply like to 
say the politicization on this issue is taking place by Members who are 
for fast track and have made a decision to vote against fast track. I 
think that itself is a real tragedy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong 
support for this rule, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives the office of the President the 
authority that it needs to make sure the U.S. is speaking with one 
voice during trade negotiations. A vote for fast track is not a vote 
for any trade agreement. Any future agreement will be subject to full 
Congressional scrutiny. It requires the President to consult with 
Congress before and during negotiations. Also, in the end, Congress 
gets an up or down vote. If we have any reservations at all with any 
specific trade agreement, we can simply vote it down.
  If the United States wants to continue its leadership in the global 
economy, and I think we do, we must take aggressive steps to expand 
markets for all of our products throughout the world. This will create 
more jobs for American workers. In all, over 11 million jobs are 
supported right now by exports. These jobs pay, believe it or not, 15 
percent or more on average. Fast track is crucial to ensure that 
American business, workers and communities continue to reap the 
benefits from an expanded market opportunity.
  American workers are the best in the world. Their creativity, 
productivity and work ethic is unmatched throughout the globe. Free 
trade agreements are about giving those workers more, not less, 
opportunity, and putting the unemployed back on the job.
  Fast track gives us the tools we need to negotiate these agreements 
and tear down those barriers to trade and investment. It opens foreign 
markets and creates new consumers for American products. That is good 
for American business, and it is even better for the American worker.
  Do not let our workers be left behind. Support this rule. Support 
fast track.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel).
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I had thought that my Republican colleagues 
wanted to go into this election based on their legislative record, 
having changed the Washington National Airport to Ronald Reagan 
Airport. I thought you could go and win with that. But it looks like on 
the eve of the

[[Page H8758]]

election you are coming back with substantive legislation that, even 
though you know you cannot win with it, that obviously there is some 
point to be made, and that is probably why we saw the raid on Social 
Security, coupled with the tax cut. And, even though it is a loser, who 
would have thought that you would deliberately come back to the floor 
with fast track, knowing that you have got another loser?
  There are certain things that we cannot do in a partisan way. 
Medicare reform, Social Security reform and trade agreements, they have 
to be bipartisan. But now that you refuse to include certain 
protections for the workers and for human rights and for the 
environment, and the President would like to work and to fashion a fast 
track bill that does not embarrass us with our trading partners, does 
not embarrass us with our business community, you insist on bringing 
this up before the election, not caring how many Republicans or 
Democrats get hurt by having to vote for a bill that is far from 
perfect.
  It would seem to me that if we are concerned about giving the 
President that authority, the first thing we should do is ask the 
President, does he want it at this time? It seems to me that if you 
want the support of labor, you would sit at the table and see whether 
labor and management can work out something that makes it easier for us 
to move forward with this legislation. But if all you want to do is 
embarrass Democrats, always remember that as you throw mud at 
Democrats, some Republicans too are going to get splattered.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Bellevue, Washington (Ms. Dunn), a very valued member of the 
Subcommittee on Trade,
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the soon-to-be chairman of the 
Committee on Rules for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and of H.R. 2621. 
The world is a much different place today than it was when this House 
last considered fast track negotiating authority over six years ago. 
Capitalism has spread to every corner of the earth and once-undeveloped 
countries have flourished under the economic freedoms this system 
provides to us.
  Nevertheless, a global economic downturn that began over 15 months 
ago is severely impacting many of these countries and is harming our 
ability to export goods. In Washington State alone, our combined 
exports to Southeast Asia are down 35 percent over last year. Consumer 
spending will help drive these economies out of recession, so we must 
make sure that our products are available to them. Our failure to 
negotiate trade agreements with other countries will only assure that 
agreements are made that exclude the United States.
  Since 1992, in Latin America and Asia alone, our competitors have 
negotiated 20 free trade agreements that exclude the United States. 
Chile, for example, has a trade deal with every major economy in this 
hemisphere except us, giving each of our competitors an 11 percent 
tariff advantage, costing our citizens extra taxes on imported goods 
and costing our American workers jobs.
  The world is not waiting for the United States. If we do not renew 
trade negotiating authority, we are closing the door on American 
workers and on American consumers. Clearly the ability to freely trade 
goods and services between nations is essential to achieving a long-
term economic objective of the United States.
  Self-interest alone would dictate that we pass this bill. As the 
world's lone remaining superpower, however, we must not act solely out 
of self-interest. These are turbulent times in many blossoming 
democracies, and many are crying out for the one thing the United 
States can provide better than anybody, and that is leadership. We must 
not shrink from this challenge.
  For the sake of American workers and American consumers and the 
defense of free trade and economic freedom, I urge my colleagues to 
vote for this bill and support this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield four minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, as we debate this fast track today, I cannot help but 
ask, why did the Speaker insist on bringing this up, when he knows it 
is going to fail? Even the Republican leadership admits that this bill 
does not have the votes to pass. It is identical to the bill that was 
pulled from the floor last year, except now it even has fewer votes.
  I want to pause here for a second to commend my colleague, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui). He has made the point and he 
has made it very forcefully that our trade policy is too important to 
be used as a political football. With America's trade deficit higher 
than ever, we should be thinking of new ways, new ideas on trade; not 
rewarming yesterday's leftovers.
  I had a meeting several months ago with Charlene Barshefsky, who is 
our Trade Representative, and she said, ``I don't know what is 
happening or what you are doing,'' and she was speaking to me in the 
generic sense, ``but,'' she said, ``our trade representatives from all 
over the world that I meet with now are beginning to talk about the 
issues that you and others have raised, the issues of the environment, 
the issues of labor rights and human rights. It is not something that 
is just coming from the majority in this body. It is coming now from 
the grassroots, whether it is in Canada, whether it is in Western 
Europe, Latin America, and,'' she said, ``it is even coming from 
Asia.''
  America's trade policies should reflect this new thinking. If the 
Republican leadership was truly serious about passing fast track, they 
would sit down with us and they would develop a new approach based on 
these values.
  Our trade policy is not working. After five years of NAFTA the 
results are in: It is bad for everyone except for big corporations. 
After the fast track bill was pulled last year, I got on a bus with 
several of my colleagues and we went to the south, and then we went to 
the west. We went to see the farm country and we went to see the people 
who worked in our factories.
  In Atlanta, Georgia, I met a woman by the name of Annie Harris. She 
worked almost 30 years for AT&T, making phones, making about $13.50 an 
hour. That was before AT&T laid her off and moved her factory to 
Mexico. She now works for a Target Store for $7.50 an hour. She sells 
the same phones she used to make, except the prices went up on them.

                              {time}  1445

  She is not alone. NAFTA is hurting hundreds of thousands of people on 
both sides of the border.
  We also went to Mexico. I know met with people like Rosa Maria 
Gonzales, who works at a modern factory assembling circuit boards. She 
makes 59 cents an hour, 59 cents an hour. She lives in a cardboard 
shack next to a sewage canal. She lives in a shack made out of the 
cardboard that she helps package the circuit boards in.
  This is the grim harvest of NAFTA. Yet the Republican fast track 
supporters want everybody to ignore all this. They want us to repeat 
the mistakes of the past.
  We say no. We can do and have to do much better than that. This is 
not a debate, as they may say, about free trade versus protectionism. 
That debate ended a long time ago. This is a debate about our future. 
It is about American leadership. It is about our prosperity.
  America needs a new trade policy based upon our democratic values 
that our mothers, our fathers, and our grandfathers fought so valiantly 
for: the right to organize, the right to work, the right to collective 
bargaining, the right to a decent wage, to clean air, clean water. Our 
trade policy betrays those issues and those values.
  We need a new trade policy that harnesses the power of markets to 
lift standards abroad, not tear them down here at home. We stand ready 
to make that happen, because we believe in a better future. This fast 
track is not the way to that future. This fast track drags America 
backwards. Do not vote for this Trojan horse designed to divide and 
distract. It will not work. Vote no.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to quote President Clinton on July 23, just a few weeks 
ago, when he said, ``I would support voting on fast track whenever we 
think we can pass it.'' Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that if a 
majority of the Members of this House were to do the right thing, we 
could pass it today.

[[Page H8759]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Terrace Park, Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
California, for yielding time to me.
  I would like to say to the gentleman who just spoke, this is not a 
debate today about trade policy. If he wants to talk about trade 
policy, he ought to talk to President Clinton about what kind of 
multilateral agreements he might want to negotiate with foreign 
countries. This is about giving the President the ability to enter into 
those agreements.
  This is so straightforward. I cannot believe this Congress on both 
sides of the aisle is not going to allow this administration, on behalf 
of our country, to negotiate trade agreements with countries that are 
entering into agreements with other trading blocs and, thus, we are 
losing markets.
  The way it currently stands, if we do not have this trading 
authority, we will not be able to enter into extremely important 
multilateral agreements that have to do with the future of the U.S. 
economy. Over one-third of our growth is directly related to exports. 
We have the freest country in the world in terms of trade. Other 
countries have higher barriers. It is very simple. We want to knock 
those barriers down.
  Look at this chart. Here are some negotiations coming up within the 
next year that the United States will not be able to participate in 
because this Congress will not give this administration the ability to 
enter into these negotiations with some sort of credibility, with some 
sort of authority. If Congress in the end decides the agreements they 
reach are not agreements we can support, we can always vote those 
agreements down, but let us give them the ability to get in there and 
fight for America.
  Latin American trade negotiations, a $300 billion, import market. WTO 
negotiations next year in Geneva on agriculture. What could be more 
important for the U.S. economy, particularly at this point when our 
agriculture community in this country is suffering so much? WTO 
government procurement negotiations, a $1 trillion global market. We 
are not going to be able to get in there and negotiate on behalf of the 
United States. WTO services negotiations. Finally, there is the Asia-
Pacific negotiations. This chart is an indication of the number of 
dollars, trillions of dollars, involved in these negotiations.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this is a no-brainer. I urge my colleagues to 
put politics aside, allow America to regain its place as a leader in 
this world with regard to trade, and support fast track.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the North American Free Trade Agreement, 
NAFTA, was the trade agreement that made it easier for employers in 
America to close plants here and reopen them in Mexico. NAFTA gave 
leverage to companies to threaten plant closures, since American 
workers are competing for their jobs with Mexican workers, whose wages 
are one-tenth of our wages because their labor unions are brutally 
repressed.
  NAFTA gave license to companies to pollute all they want, since 
Mexican environmental laws are rarely enforced, and NAFTA gave 
unprecedented powers to corporations to sue governments for damages 
when they try to pass tighter environmental laws.
  Since NAFTA, America's trade surplus with Mexico has turned into a 
trade deficit. Fast track expands NAFTA and will expand the defects 
which NAFTA creates.
  NAFTA defects include low NAFTA partner wages. What does fast track 
legislation do to remedy the defect? Nothing for Americans.
  NAFTA defect: increased import of contaminated food. What does the 
fast track legislation do to remedy that defect? Nothing for Americans.
  NAFTA defect: Trade deficit growth. What does the fast track 
legislation do to remedy that defect? Nothing for Americans.
  NAFTA defect: pressure to lower U.S. wages. What does the fast track 
legislation do to remedy that defect? Nothing for Americans.
  NAFTA defect: employer threatens to move to NAFTA partner country. No 
action for Americans with this legislation, nothing for Americans.
  There is nothing for Americans in fast track except closed plants, 
lost jobs, lower wages, and trade deficit growth. The bill, this fast 
track bill, closes plants on a fast track. It cuts jobs on a fast 
track. It increases the trade deficit on a fast track.
  Fast track is a fast move to expand NAFTA and worsen the problems 
NAFTA has created. Vote no on the rule. Vote no on fast track.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield 2 minutes to my 
friend, the gentleman from Morristown, New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), 
one of the great champions of the cause of free trade.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule 
and fast track legislation authorization for the President.
  First, this rule and this bill are in every way about jobs: job 
preservation, job expansion, and job creation. Just about every sector 
of our economy, and most particularly my home State of New Jersey, is 
or will be dependent on foreign markets. The passage of this agreement 
is all about present and future jobs and keeping men and women across 
America working and supporting their families. It is all about 
protecting our standard of living, our future standard of living, and 
doing so as soon as possible.
  While fast track is important to our Nation, it is important to my 
State, where trade provides an enormous boost for diverse New Jersey 
industries. New Jersey is the ninth largest exporter among 50 States, 
at $22.4 billion in goods and exports. Over 13 percent of the private 
sector in my State are related directly or indirectly to international 
trade and investments.
  New Jersey is home to a majority of our Nation's pharmaceutical 
industries. These workers are counting on these international trade 
agreements and our participation. It is also home to businesses which 
lead our Nation's telecommunications and electronic industries, as well 
as to biotechnology, aerospace, chemical and food manufacturing. The 
future of these companies and their workers in my State, large and 
small, and their ability to retain and promote jobs is directly related 
to the passage of this bill.
  It would be inconceivable that all of us would not support this rule 
and this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, why in the world are we bringing up this bill 
when it is sure to fail? Mr. Speaker, this is too important an issue to 
sacrifice long-term considerations for any short-term political 
advantage. Trade issues do deserve better than this.
  This is not a question of whether we want and need more international 
trade. We do. That is why I worked actively to help shape the Uruguay 
Round, and voted for it. The question is, more international trade 
under what conditions?
  There is little controversy about granting fast track for WTO 
negotiations on services, information technologies, agriculture or, 
probably, for that matter, Chile.
  I say, by the way, to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman), we can start negotiations in these matters with or without 
fast track, as was true of the Uruguay Round. The main issue underlying 
the fast track controversy is how to respond to the burgeoning trade 
with industrializing nations, Brazil, India, China, Mexico. Our trade 
with these nations has exploded in the last 5 years from one-third to 
almost one-half of our imports. These Nations have very different rules 
regarding environment, labor markets, State subsidies, et cetera. What 
will be the rules of competition with these nations?
  The fast track proposal before us limits the ability of the President 
to negotiate on these items. It limits it. Unlike for any other 
previous President, it sets up restrictions like ``directly related'', 
and says it is okay if we would require Nations to maintain present 
standards, but we can negotiate to improve them.
  The Kyoto agreement is opposed, and I think correctly, because it 
would give

[[Page H8760]]

industrializing nations a free ride on global warming. Why tie the 
hands of the President to press other environmental issues and labor 
market issues in trade negotiations?
  We can do better than this fast track bill, much better. When it 
comes up today, vote no.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pontiac, Illinois (Mr. Ewing), a great champion of our 
Nation's farmers,
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, the vote we are about to cast on granting fast track 
authority is one of the most important this Congress will take before 
we adjourn. With current international economic turmoil, it is 
absolutely essential that the United States show strong leadership and 
commitment to international trade and to emerging global markets.
  Over the past 10 years, our economy has prospered as a result of the 
increase in world trade. If we reject fast track, Congress would 
prevent the U.S. from having the negotiating authority to knock down 
trade barriers that hinder opportunities to expand our markets abroad. 
No sector would be hurt more by defeating fast track than American 
agriculture. Our farmers depend on foreign markets for a significant 
portion of their income.
  Not only does international trade benefit our farmers, but it 
benefits all the industries connected with agriculture. Government 
estimates show that exports have created more than 3.5 million new jobs 
since 1990, and that is nearly 30 percent of the jobs created in this 
decade. These are quality jobs which pay about 15 percent higher wages 
than the average.
  Since fast track authority expired in 1995, there have been 20-plus 
trade agreements negotiated in the Western Hemisphere alone. These 
agreements were negotiated by some of our biggest trading partners 
while the United States sat on the sidelines and watched as these 
countries enhanced their own competitiveness at our expense.
  The next round of WTO liberalization talks are scheduled to begin in 
1999. The issue of liberalizing of agricultural policy is being pushed 
to the top of the agenda. The American farmer would be the clear winner 
of any agreement that eliminates or reduces tariffs.
  For the American farmer, for all of business, I urge a positive vote 
on the rule on fast track.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and in opposition to 
giving the President fast track negotiating authority.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had 4 years to analyze the results of NAFTA, a 
trade deal negotiated under fast track, 4 years to watch our trade 
deficit skyrocket, workers' wages decline, and jobs leave the United 
States by the hundreds of thousands.
  From 1993 to 1997, under NAFTA, a $1.7 billion trade surplus with 
Mexico has been turned into a $14.5 billion trade deficit. We went from 
a surplus to a deficit. During the debate over NAFTA, the multinational 
corporations who told us how great this policy would be predicted that 
NAFTA would create 200,000 jobs by 1995. Instead, we lost 400,000 jobs 
by 1997.

                              {time}  1500

  Further, NAFTA is being used as a corporate tool to threaten workers 
and to lower wages. According to a study done at Cornell University, 62 
percent of corporations in America have used NAFTA or similar 
agreements to drive down wages and benefits.
  This Cornell study also found that U.S. companies used the threat of 
moving their companies to Mexico more frequently now than before NAFTA 
was enacted. These are some of the great results of NAFTA.
  Mr. Speaker, last year I went to Mexico, along with the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
to see what was going on there in the wake of the NAFTA agreement. I 
saw with my own eyes the horrendous pollution caused by the maquiladora 
companies in the area, pollution which is hurting the Mexicans as well 
as Americans along the border. Let us vote this agreement down. Let us 
kill it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Huntington Beach, California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule, 
but I am opposed to fast track authority. I have long supported free 
and fair trade among free people. However, I adamantly oppose to giving 
fast track authority to the President so he can put anything he wishes 
into legislation implementing a trade agreement, and place it before 
the Congress for an up-or-down vote.
  This authority lends itself to abuse. The last time we awarded the 
President fast track authority, this President betrayed our trust. He 
included in the GATT implementation legislation a provision that 
dramatically changed our patent system, and this change was not 
mandated by the GATT agreement treaty.
  Mr. Speaker, for 4 years this body has spent considerable time and 
effort trying to undo what fast track did to us the last time. Knowing 
good and well that Congress would have only one up-or-down vote and 
take the package as a whole or leave it, the President just decided to 
throw this provision into fast track, or into that implementing 
legislation.
  With fast track authority, we can expect that implementation 
legislation in the future for future trade pacts will be buried with 
time bombs that will sabotage our economy or change substantive law in 
our country, things that we might even take for granted.
  One of the provisions of fast track gives the President the right to 
offset any decrease in revenue that is put forward by a trade 
agreement. Does that mean that the President can have a tax increase or 
a ``revenue raiser'' as they claim? Sure. Sure, that is exactly what it 
means.
  In the future, we should be far less generous in terms of our giving 
away our authority in Congress, especially giving the President more 
authority. We should be less generous in giving him the authority to 
make international trade agreements, in contrast to what we have heard 
this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, the idea of a global economy has been used to take 
authority out of the hands of the people elected by the American people 
and giving it to unelected government officials, even foreigners.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against fast track and for the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. This is 
a closed rule that is not going to allow any amendments or improvements 
to this process that could have, in my opinion, increased support for 
this bill.
  Yesterday, I presented an amendment before the Committee on Rules 
that would have made this a better situation, but because of this rule, 
it will not be considered.
  Mr. Speaker, the amendment that I drafted would provide tremendous 
benefits for our Nation's farmers in future trade negotiations by 
moving the Committee on Agriculture and agriculture to the table in our 
international trade agreements.
  The Committee on Agriculture in the House and the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in the Senate would be given 
enhanced authority and jurisdiction for agricultural trade. The 
amendment would allow these agriculture committees the opportunity to 
approve further fast track authority or to disallow further authority 
if the process or consultation are flawed or weak.
  At this time, these committees have no authority to stop or continue 
the process. In fact, until a recent agreement with the Committee on 
Ways and Means was reached, there was not even language allowing the 
Committee on Agriculture to be consulted.
  The U.S. is a major player in the world market. In fact international 
trade is absolutely critical to the future success of our farmers. 
However, those of us from farm country, and those of us who have set 
out to protect American agriculture on the committee, have no methods 
to safeguard

[[Page H8761]]

farmers' interests during the trade talks.
  In the last couple of trade agreements, in the GATT agreement, we 
gave access to the multinationals in banking and insurance and a lot of 
those kinds of issues. In exchange, we let the European farmers keep 
subsidies that are more than my people get from their entire crop.
  In the NAFTA agreement that we agreed to, we opened up the borders. 
But in the case of their supply management systems in dairy and poultry 
and eggs, we allowed them to keep their system and we cannot export 
dairy into their country. That is the kind of problems that those of us 
in agriculture are concerned about.
  I believe that the fast track mechanism is outdated and a flawed tool 
that cannot adequately protect our farmers. The fast track authority 
that was originally granted was used for the Tokyo Round. This was the 
entire Tokyo Round. It is 50 pages.
  Then we had the NAFTA. This is one-third of the NAFTA agreement. We 
changed all kinds of United States laws through this process.
  This is the GATT agreement. This is one sixth of the GATT agreement. 
I submit that we have to have another process where we can bring more 
people in, especially in the agriculture area, so that we can have a 
look at these laws that are changed in our jurisdiction, that we can 
make sure that these agreements are going to protect our farmers, and 
that we are going to come back with agreements that are going to be 
good for American agriculture and, therefore, good for the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and defeat this 
fast track vote.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I first would like to inquire how much time 
is remaining on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alpine, California (Mr. Hunter), my very good friend, my classmate who 
came with us in the class of 1980, and we both agree strongly on the 
importance of passage of this rule.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, my 
good colleague who came in with me in 1980 and somehow went wrong, but 
he is my great friend.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the first rules in business is one does not give 
financial power to bad businessmen. The negotiators on the Clinton 
trade team are bad businessmen. That is, they have a bad record.
  NAFTA took us from a $3 billion surplus in trade over Mexico to an 
annual $15 billion loss. It took us to an increased trade loss with 
China that brings us close to a $40 billion annual trade loss.
  The trade agreement with Japan under the Clinton administration has 
broken down. The Clinton team consists of trade losers. Do not give 
power to trade losers. Not this President, not this time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, article 1, Section 8 of the 
United States Constitution, in particular clause 3, says that Congress 
shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.
  As of today, there are about 55 Members of this Congress who have 
asked the President to resign. I am one of them. There are a number of 
others who think there ought to be a formal board of inquiry as far as 
impeachment brought before the House.
  My question is how can the same people who are asking the President 
to resign turn around and give their constitutionally mandated 
authority to regulate commerce between nations to that same person?
  I am not going to do that. This is my job. I do not want the 
President's job. I want him to do his job. But the Founding Fathers 
gave Congress the power to regulate commerce between nations, and I am 
not going to vote to give it away.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote against the rule and I 
encourage them to vote against the bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the fast track bill before the House today. If 
fast track were to become the law of the land, the President could 
negotiate trade agreements that Congress is not allowed to amend, as 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) pointed out. That means the 
main force for protecting American workers' and consumers' interest 
would be eliminated.
  Therefore, unless the fast track rules under which a trade agreement 
is negotiated contain adequate protections for labor and the 
environment, I must vote against the deal. Unfortunately, that is the 
case today. In fact this rule will not even allow amendments to protect 
workers' rights, human rights, and the environment. Therefore, I will 
vote against both the rule and the bill and urge my colleagues to do 
likewise.
  Unlimited fast track procedures also brought us NAFTA, which I 
believe has been a failure. The fast track NAFTA deal with Mexico and 
Canada in 1993 is a perfect example of what happens when we rush into 
agreements that do not take into consideration the concerns of workers 
and consumers. Ever since NAFTA became law, America has lost more than 
400,000 jobs as corporations move production to Mexico and Canada.
  Employers are using the threat of plant closures to drive wages down 
as well. People who found new employment after their jobs moved to 
Mexico took an average pay cut of $4,400 a year. Air and water 
pollution along the U.S.-Mexico border has become significantly worse 
since we have NAFTA, while the amount of hazardous waste crossing the 
border increased 30 percent in 1995, the last year in which we have 
statistics.
  Increased agricultural imports and inadequate border inspections have 
increased the threat of unsafe food in our supermarkets and unsafe 
trucks on our highways.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the legacy of NAFTA and fast track. When we move 
too fast, we make mistakes. America has negotiated hundreds of 
successful trade agreements without fast track authority. Given NAFTA's 
failure, why rush into more unlimited fast track trade deals?
  Congress should vote for the right track, not the poorly drafted fast 
track.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose fast track. Even the President, who 
supports basic fast track, is opposed to this. So, we ought to vote 
this down. We ought not to be for election time gimmicks. We ought to 
do what is right for the American people.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote for the right track, not this 
poorly drafted fast track. Defeat the rule and defeat the bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella), my dynamic and eloquent friend.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think at this point just let me note that the power 
under this legislation is granted to not an individual, but the office 
of a presidency. And the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), my 
good friend, acknowledges Congress still maintains its right as vested 
in the United States Constitution, because at the end of the day we 
have the right to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on the underlying legislation.
  The reality is that throughout our Nation's history there are people 
who look inward constantly to create jobs and those who look outward to 
determine that there are no limits to America's horizons. And we 
demonstrate time and time again, the hard-working people that I 
represent, that we can trade freely and fairly throughout this world 
and create wealth, not just for the people of this country but 
throughout this great world of ours.
  The reality is that we are talking about free and fair trade. Not 
looking inward, but looking outward. The people on Staten Island that I 
represent go

[[Page H8762]]

to work every single day with no limits to their horizons. I say let us 
continue that growth.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, in Central Texas, international trade has meant more 
good, high-paying jobs, not fewer. I personally believe that we gain 
from more international commerce, by building bridges, not erecting 
barriers. To do that, the President does need reasonable authority to 
expand international commerce. But the vote that we are having today is 
not about more international commerce, it is about more domestic 
politics.
  Mr. Speaker, is it not ludicrous, indeed bizarre, that the same House 
Republicans that on Monday were releasing a videotape and complaining 
about an abuse of power by this President have waited all the way to 
Friday to say that we must have a vote today about giving that same 
person more power?

                              {time}  1515

  This is not about more power for President Clinton, really. It is 
about more votes for Newt Gingrich, and that is the last thing that 
America needs.
  We do need a bipartisan coalition for trade in this country. It ought 
to be trade that recognizes that some of the concerns that have been 
advanced about working conditions, about environmental concerns are 
very real, and there is a way to address those at the same time that we 
seek more international commerce.
  But today is not the day to do that. What we have here is not really 
a vote about fast track, perhaps fast track in name only. This is 
really only a sidetrack. It is wrong, and this measure ought to be 
voted down.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions), a champion of free trade.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of fast track.
  I find it very amazing that my colleagues and friends, including 
those from Texas, blame this on politics. I will tell my colleagues who 
I blame it on. I blame it on people like the Texas Farm Bureau and the 
Texas and Southwest Cattle Raisers who have asked me and told me point 
blank, it is the most important vote that could take place in the 
remainder of this session. They are for opening markets and creating 
jobs. They are for American export businesses. They recognize that 96 
percent of the consumers in the world live outside the United States. 
Lastly, they realize that 30 percent of the growth of the markets that 
they have come directly from overseas markets.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleagues, I do not blame this on Newt 
Gingrich. I blame this on the Texas Farm Bureau, the Texas and 
Southwest Cattle Raisers and 75 other people who are in the 
agribusiness.
  I will vote yes with them.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this debate on fast track is not about 
whether or not the United States should be participating in the global 
economy, because we all agree on that. It is about how we are going to 
participate in that economy.
  Are we going to allow multinational corporations to bargain down the 
environmental protection standards of nations around the world in the 
name of economic competitiveness? Are we going to allow our own strong 
environmental and health laws and regulations to be knocked down as 
barriers to trade?
  I urge my colleagues to consider our experience with NAFTA. Thanks to 
NAFTA and the environmental side agreement to NAFTA, we now have more 
factories along the heavily polluted U.S.-Mexican border dumping an 
even greater amount of hazardous waste, mostly illegally. Risks to the 
health and safety of American working families are increasing as food 
imports rise while the number of inspections plummet. These 
environmental and public health problems are the result of inadequate 
free trade agreements that create pressure on neighboring governments 
to relax environmental regulations in an effort to lure manufacturers 
across the borders, allowing these companies to profit by polluting and 
abusing natural resources.
  I urge my colleagues, do not be fooled again. We already were fooled 
once with NAFTA. We need a trade policy that opens markets while at the 
same time setting high health, environmental and labor standards.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no both on the rule, because it is 
essentially unfair, not allowing other amendments, and also to vote no 
on fast track. Let us not make the same mistake again.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the 
Woodlands, Texas (Mr. Brady), another champion of free trade.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I fully support this bill and this 
rule.
  I come from a State that has benefited from fast track and from 
international trade. One out of every three new jobs created in Texas 
are as a result of international trade because of NAFTA, even with its 
imperfections. We have tens of thousands of new jobs that Texas 
families now enjoy because we are willing to compete.
  I did not move to Washington. I live in Texas and just commute each 
week. On my drive to the airport and back to my district, I see and go 
by dairies and farms and small businesses and large companies where 
there are Texas workers, American families who are enjoying the 
American dream, putting their kids in school, saving for college, 
purchasing a home because they believe in the American principle of 
free, fair, competition.
  Ninety-six percent of all the world's consumers live outside of 
America. They all cannot buy as much as we do today because they are 
growing fast. Other countries are competing for them. I want our 
American companies out there competing today for that market and those 
sales, because it is not our jobs that we are looking at, it is our 
children's jobs and our children's children's jobs that depend upon our 
competing today internationally.
  I golf twice a year, whether I need to or not. My friends who golf 
more often and like to wage a friendly bet tell me that the outcome of 
those friendly bets are often determined on the first tee, when the 
rules are drawn up and the strokes are given.
  In international trade today, America is not on that first economic 
tee. The strokes are not coming to American companies. The rules do not 
favor fair treatment for our companies. We are losing jobs because of 
it.
  Let us not practice partisan politics. Let us not pit the President 
against the Republicans. I think jobs for our workers, for our farmers, 
for our small businesses ought to take precedence over partisan 
politics, which is being encouraged today.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, free trade for corporations or fair trade 
for people? I vote for the people every time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule because, as with all trade 
agreements that come before this House, it lacks a very important 
component, a minimum code of conduct by which American companies should 
abide.
  Most Americans know the story of sweatshops in Latin America and 
Southeast Asia, but do Americans know about Guess Jeans? Guess was 
cited for violation of wage and hour laws in the United States. Not 
surprisingly, it has now moved 40 percent of its manufacturing to 
Mexico and South America, thereby escaping union organizers and 
Department of Labor oversight. Ironically, they have subsequently run 
an advertising campaign that claims that their jeans are 100 percent 
sweatshop free.
  Or do Americans know about accounting audit reports of Nike that were 
uncovered by TRAC, the Transnational Research and Action Center? 
Manufacturers of Nike products are paying wages of less than $2 per day 
in factories in China and Vietnam. But only because of public pressure 
and bad press, Nike has promised to do better. Adoption of our code of 
conduct will assure that they do better.
  Unfortunately, U.S. companies are engaging in even grosser abuses as 
they

[[Page H8763]]

operate free from the deterrence of media, public scrutiny or U.S. law.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and accept my amendment 
which establishes a code of conduct for American corporations. 
Otherwise, we will have to live with the fact that the shoes on our 
feet and the blue jeans on our bodies might just be made from the sweat 
of children living in squalor.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ocala, Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the proponents of fast-track wrap their arguments around 
a banner of false logic and false promises. Granting any President 
fast-track authority clearly violates the constitutional 
responsibilities of Congress. Article I, Section 8 explicitly states 
that, ``The Congress shall have Power . . . to regulate Commerce with 
foreign nations.''
  While the United States has entered into thousands of trade 
agreements in our history, only five have received fast-track 
authority. The Clinton administration itself has negotiated over 200 
trade agreements while in office without fast-track trade authority. 
Just NAFTA and the Uruguay Round of GATT had fast track authority.
  Any Administration can and should negotiate bilateral and 
multilateral trade agreements with the advice and consent of Congress. 
That is the Constitution!
  The United States is the ``Mother of all Markets.'' Every nation on 
earth wants access to our markets. If gaining access requires the 
involvement of Congress in negotiating trade agreements, then every 
nation must accept our rule of law.
  Let us be honest with each other. There have been some real 
devastating aspects of the previous fast-track, which brought us NAFTA, 
especially as it affected my home state of Florida.
  The Florida tomato industry has lost over $750 million since the 
beginning of NAFTA. Import of tomatoes from Mexico has surged by 71% 
under NAFTA, putting hundreds of farmers out of work and losing 
thousands of farm related jobs, and no relief has ever been granted by 
this Administration.
  These losses in exports are directly tied to the unfair trading 
practices that have been waged against Florida's farmers. Mexico has 
dumped tomatoes and other winter vegetables on the U.S. market. The 
Department of Commerce recognizes that Mexican tomatoes were dumped, 
but the Administration has never done anything about it.
  The Administration made promises to protect agriculture against 
unfair trading practices with the last fast-track bill. They never 
fulfilled those promises and now they are offering new promises to 
protect agriculture.
  Don't believe any of the latest claims that fast-track will protect 
our agricultural industries. This Administration lied before, they are 
lying now, and they will lie tomorrow!
  Mr. Speaker, I also would like to include a letter from the Florida 
Farm Bureau Federation dealing with this legislation:

                               Florida Farm Bureau Federation,

                               Gainsville, FL, September 25, 1998.
     Hon. Clifford Stearns,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Stearns: After having reviewed the 
     provisions that have been added to H.R. 2621, the Fast Track 
     bill, we thought that it would be important for Florida Farm 
     Bureau to let you know we are still opposed.
       While these provisions are a beginning, they do not answer 
     our concerns. Until these concerns are met, we cannot support 
     Fast Track. We urge you to oppose H.R. 2621.
           Sincerely,
                                                Carl B. Loop, Jr.,
                                                        President.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Stillwater, Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins), a hard-working member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Speaker, Fact: 96 percent of the consumers live 
outside the United States. Are we fearful of competing for that market?
  I want to make sure we do everything we can for our children and for 
our citizens to penetrate those markets by selling United States 
products and agriculture commodities.
  It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who said, we have nothing to fear 
but fear itself. If we are fearful of entering those markets, we are 
surely to shrink. We are surely to sell the future of our children down 
the drain, and we will become a second-class economy.
  One year from this December, just 15 months from now the World Trade 
Organization will meet to negotiate international agriculture trade 
agreements. Are we going to send our negotiators there with one arm or 
maybe both arms tied behind us? I fear the fact we are not going to 
give or arm our negotiators with the opportunity to enter trade 
agreements to sell agriculture commodities at a time when we are 
hurting worse on the American farm than any time since the Great 
Depression.
  That is the reason why in this bill, let there be no mistake, I have 
placed the toughest language to assist in our agriculture negotiations 
that we have ever had. In fact, we establish in this bill a chief 
negotiator for agriculture with ambassador status, because I want 
someone around the table, whether it is in Geneva or wherever, 
negotiating for the farmers and ranchers of this country.
  Are we going to give to our negotiators the opportunity to negotiate 
trade agreements for our citizens? I am going to vote yes for fast 
track because I want to build a future for our children and our 
grandchildren. They have no choice. They will have to compete in a 
global economy. Many of us can back away and say, well, that may not 
affect us. But I could not face your children or my children and 
grandchildren without trying to give them the best opportunity possible 
to compete in this global economy.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tucson, Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), a great champion of trade, one of our 
hardest workers and one of the most thoughtful Members of the House.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of this rule and for the 
legislation granting fast track authority to the President.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day to have to listen to many of the 
speeches that we have heard here today. The fear that some members have 
for America's future, their fear about America being able to compete in 
the world. Do they have so little confidence in America that they do 
not think that American workers and American citizens can compete in 
this world?
  We have been hearing a lot about how NAFTA is the source of our 
problem. Maybe NASTA explains why our unemployment rate is at an all-
time low. Maybe it explains why we have created so many jobs in this 
world, more than 6 million jobs created since 1994. We heard about 
400,000 lost jobs. How about the 6 million that have been created?
  Maybe we should attribute all of those to the creation of NAFTA. The 
fact of the matter is, we have had a tremendous surge in exports over 
the last several years. Look at this chart, at how exports have grown 
3,000 percent over the last 35 years. That has created jobs for 
American workers who produce those exports that have gone overseas. We 
are the beneficiary of growing exports. And just in the last 12 years, 
look at the increase in the gross domestic product of this country 
attribute to trade--$500 billion. That would not have been there 
otherwise if we had not had foreign trade.
  So why do we need fast track now? Because there is much that remains 
to be done. There are many things that we need, to have negotiating 
authority for this President to be able to attempt to reduce the 100 
percent tariff that Indonesia has on American automobiles, to eliminate 
the European Union's 25 percent tax on our trucks and try to get those 
down, and Brazil's inordinate tax on computers. Next year we are going 
to begin negotiations on agriculture. We are the world's largest 
agricultural exporter. We need to have this authority so that we can 
sit at that table with the rest of the world while they talk about it 
and so that we can reduce those tariffs for the United States. We need 
fast track authority, as President Clinton himself has said.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and for fast track 
authority.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. For those who may not have been here

[[Page H8764]]

back in 1993 when we were negotiating with each other as to whether or 
not we should pass the NAFTA agreement which was negotiated under fast 
track authority, I would remind my colleagues that in that year, we had 
a $1.7 billion trade surplus with Mexico. That has turned into a $17 
billion trade deficit. The economists across this country tell us that 
each billion dollars represents between 116,000 jobs and 120,000 jobs. 
Do the mathematics and find out whether or not NAFTA negotiated under 
fast track authority has been good for us. In fact, now our trade 
deficit combined with our NAFTA trade partners, Canada and Mexico, is 
$31 billion.
  How many jobs would we be able to create if we had fair trade rather 
than fast track free trade? The point is that we here in Congress in 
1993 knew there were things about the NAFTA agreement that we wanted to 
change. We wanted protection for labor. We wanted environmental riders. 
We were told, ``Well, you can get these side agreements.'' You can blow 
your nose with those side agreements. They do not carry the impact of 
law. They have not been enforced.
  What this argument is about today is whether or not we in Congress 
have the required amount of guts to say to the Administration, ``We as 
the elected Members of Congress, we as the elected representatives of 
the people want something to say.'' Fast track is the wrong track. The 
rule should be voted down and so should the bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to make in order the McKinney amendment to establish a 
corporate code of conduct and the Peterson amendment to expand the role 
of the Committee on Agriculture in reviewing trade matters.
  I urge my colleagues to postpone debate on this issue. There is no 
chance to pass it today. We should not sacrifice long-term, bipartisan 
cooperation on fast track for short-term political gain.
  Mr. Speaker, the text of the amendment to be offered if the previous 
question is defeated is as follows:

        Amendment To Be Offered If Previous Question Is Defeated

       On page 2, line 10, strike ``and'' the second time it 
     appears.
       On page 2 line 11, after ``(2)'', add the following:
       ``a further amendment printed in section 2 of this 
     resolution and numbered (i), if offered by Representative 
     McKinney of Georgia or her designee, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order, shall be 
     considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 
     thirty minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent; (3) a further amendment printed in 
     section 2 of this resolution and numbered (ii), if offered by 
     Representative Peterson of Minnesota or his designee, which 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, 
     shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for thirty minutes equally divided and controlled 
     by the proponent and an opponent; and (4)''
       On page 2, after line 11, add the following new section:
       ``Section 2. The text of the amendments follows:
       (i) Amendment to H.R. 2621, as reported, to be offered by 
     Representative McKinney of Georgia
       In section 102(b)(7), add the following at the end:
       (C) To ensure that any entity that receives benefits under 
     any trade agreement entered into under this title adopts and 
     adheres to the following principles in all domestic and 
     foreign operations:
       (i) Provide a safe and health workplace.
       (ii) Ensure fair employment, including the prohibition on 
     the use of child and forced labor, the prohibition on 
     discrimination based upon race, gender, national origin, or 
     religious belief, the respect for freedom of association and 
     the right to organize and bargain collectively, and the 
     payment of a living wage to all workers.
       (iii) Uphold responsible environmental protection and 
     environmental practices.
       (iv) Promote good business practices, including prohibiting 
     illicit payments and ensuring fair competition.
       (v) Maintain, through leadership at all levels, a corporate 
     culture that respects free expression consistent with 
     legitimate business concerns, does not condone political 
     coercion in the workplace, encourages good corporate 
     citizenship and makes a positive contribution to the 
     communities in which the entity operates, and promotes 
     ethical conduct that is recognized, valued, and exemplified 
     by all employees.
       (vi) Require, under terms of contract, partners, suppliers, 
     and subcontractors of the entity to adopt and adhere to the 
     principles described in clause (v).
       (vii) Implement and monitor compliance with the principles 
     described in clauses (i) through (vi) through a program that 
     is designed to prevent and detect conduct that is not in 
     compliance with such principles by any employee of the 
     entity, or any employee of the partner, supplier, or 
     subcontractor of the entity, and that includes--
       (I) standards for ethical conduct of such employees which 
     refer to the principles;
       (II) procedures for assignment of appropriately qualified 
     personnel at the management level to monitor and enforce 
     compliance with the principles;
       (III) procedures for reporting violations of the principles 
     by such employees;
       (IV) procedures for selecting qualified individuals who are 
     not employees to monitor compliance with the principles, and 
     for auditing the effectiveness of such compliance monitoring;
       (V) procedures for disciplinary action in response to 
     violations of the principles;
       (VI) procedures designed to ensure that, in cases in which 
     a violation of the principles has been detected, reasonable 
     steps are taken to correct the violation and prevent similar 
     violations from occurring;
       (VII) procedures for providing educational and employment-
     related counseling to any child employee in violation of the 
     principles; and
       (VIII) communication of all standards and procedures with 
     respect to the principles to every employee, by requiring the 
     employee to participate in a training program, or by 
     disseminating information in writing that explains the 
     standards and procedures.
       (ii) Amendment to H.R. 2621, as reported to be offered by 
     Representative Peterson of Minnesota
       Page 12, strike line 19 through 23 and insert the 
     following:
       (A) consult closely and on a timely basis (including 
     immediately before initialing an agreement) with, and keep 
     fully apprised of the negotiations--
       (i) the congressional advisers for trade policy and 
     negotiations appointed under section 161 of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2211);
       (ii) the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on 
     Agriculture of the House of Representatives; and
       (iii) the Committee on Finance and the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate; and
       Page 23, line 17, insert ``and the Committee on 
     Agriculture'' after ``Rules''.
       Page 24, line 7, insert ``and the Committee on 
     Agriculture'' after ``Rules''.
       Page 25, line 3, insert ``and the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry'' after ``Finance''.
       Page 25, line 4, insert ``and the Committee on 
     Agriculture'' after ``Ways and Means''.
       Page 27, line 8, insert ``and the Committee on 
     Agriculture'' after ``Ways and Means''.
       Page 27, line 10, insert ``and the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry'' after ``Finance''.
       Page 32, line 14, strike ``or'' and insert a comma.
       Page 32, line 16, insert ``, or the chairman or ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Agriculture'' after 
     ``Rules''.
       Page 32, line 19, insert ``and the Committee on 
     Agriculture'' after ``Rules''.
       Page 32, line 20, strike ``either'' and insert ``any 
     such''.
       Page 33, line 7, insert ``and the Committee on 
     Agriculture'' after ``Rules''.
       Page 31, insert the following after line 6 and redesignate 
     the succeeding paragraphs accordingly:
       (1) Disapproval of the negotiation.--The trade authorities 
     procedures shall not apply to any implementing bill that 
     contains a provision approving any trade agreement that is 
     entered into under section 103(b) with any foreign country if 
     the Committee on Finance or the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate or the Committee on 
     Ways and Means or the Committee on Agriculture of the House 
     of Representatives disapprove of the negotiation of the 
     agreement before the close of the 90-calendar day period that 
     begins on the date notice is provided under section 104(a) 
     with respect to the negotiation of the agreement.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
California is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, no matter what you think about the 
President, no matter what you think about the U.S.-Canada trade 
agreement and its impact on Northern Plains farmers and ranchers, no 
matter what you think about the North American Free Trade Agreement and 
its impact on Florida's tomato farmers, no matter what you think about 
the impact of economic development on farmers in Mexico, dolphins, sea 
turtles or the Amazon rain forest, there is just one question that we 
must ask ourselves today: Are the American people better off if America 
is at the table when countries make new trade deals? Should we be at 
the table when the nations of the world sit down at the WTO to 
negotiate new trade rules for agriculture, services and intellectual 
property? Or when the countries of Latin America entertain offers for 
preferential access to their

[[Page H8765]]

growing markets? Or when the countries of Asia talk about ways to 
rebound from their economic crisis?
  Obviously, Mr. Speaker, we are much better off if we, the world's 
only complete superpower, are at the table for trade negotiations. The 
world will not stop to wait for us if we simply miss the bus. We will 
be the losers, Mr. Speaker.
  We have got to pass this rule and pass fast track so, as President 
Clinton said on July 23, we can have these votes and put it together. 
We can have bipartisan support for a very important policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the 
resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 193, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 465]

                               YEAS--230

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--193

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Burton
     English
     Furse
     Goss
     Jefferson
     Kennelly
     Moakley
     Payne
     Pryce (OH)
     Rush
     Yates

                              {time}  1552

  Mr. GONZALEZ changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SOLOMON and Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________