[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 71 (Tuesday, June 4, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3132-H3133]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        TRADING AWAY OUR FUTURE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for five minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to highlight the flaws in the 
Bush administration's trade policy, a plan to trade away even more of 
America's jobs, our national security, and even our sovereignty.
  Word came today that the administration will once again try to bring 
back to this House an irresponsible fast track bill and seek its 
passage. This proposal obviously is not the road to a prosperous future 
for working families in our country, because throughout our country we 
see the fruits of NAFTA: Closed factories, a jobless recovery, and 
downward pressure on wages.
  From Iowa to New Hampshire to the Carolinas and everywhere in 
between,

[[Page H3133]]

NAFTA has killed thousands of jobs and left working families without 
hope. For a multinational corporation with the ability to move 
production to low-wage countries like Mexico and China, NAFTA and fast 
track are made to order. For a textile worker in the Carolinas, a 
farmer in Florida or California, or an auto worker in the Great Lakes, 
NAFTA and fast track can spell disaster.
  NAFTA passed almost eight years ago. Ask any American worker standing 
in an unemployment line, ``How has NAFTA affected you?'' It has been 
almost two years since Congress passed permanent normal trade relations 
with China. Ask any American worker standing in an unemployment line, 
``How has trade with China affected you?'' The answer to both questions 
is the same: More layoffs, more factory shutdowns, and more plants 
being moved to China and Mexico.
  If the fast track conference bill passes the House, President Bush 
will push Congress to pass a whole new NAFTA: NAFTA for the Americas. 
Basically this would mean a free trade region encompassing 34 nations 
in our hemisphere. To the produce-producing States like Florida and 
California, instead of just Mexico they will have to face an onslaught 
from more countries, 31 to be exact, with low wages and no 
environmental regulations. To our beef producers, imagine beef from 
Argentina imported tariff-free. Grains, citrus fruits, cut flowers, and 
just about every other good available in the world will be flooding our 
markets tariff-free.
  The Founding Fathers gave Congress the power to regulate all 
international commerce. It is right in our Constitution. Some of our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle may not know this, or worse, 
may not care. Our constituents did not send us here to sign over our 
constitutional duties to the executive branch. That is not why we were 
elected. They elected us to represent their interests, not only those 
of multinational corporations hoping to report another penny or two on 
their quarterly profits at the expense of America's workers.
  Pick up a paper in just about any city on any given day and the 
report reads, ``IBM to Cut 1,500 Jobs in Microelectronics Unit.'' Or 
how about this one: ``Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina Sees 15,000 Job 
Cuts,'' or ``Williamson-Dickie Becomes Latest Textile Employer to Close 
Factory.'' How will America defend herself without any manufacturing 
infrastructure? Do you really believe we should import the goods from 
China, Pakistan or Indonesia as substitutes for our own?
  The other body fiercely debated something called Chapter 11 of the 
NAFTA agreement as it considered its bill. That little clause would 
allow a corporation from another country to sue a city, a State, or 
even the United States Government in an attempt to undermine our 
environmental, food safety, and consumer protection laws.
  Take the case of a Canadian company that recently sued the State of 
California over a State environmental law. California banned MTBE 
because it was contaminating groundwater. Federalism at work; right? 
Not under NAFTA. Using chapter 11, the Canadian company sued the State. 
Not in court, but before a secret NAFTA tribunal, claiming the law was 
trade-restrictive.
  If we cannot protect our own health and safety, we give our rights to 
multinational corporations. What kind of sovereignty is that? It is 
ridiculous that the Bush administration wants to give more power to 
just a few foreign companies and ignore our local communities. What 
kind of a trade policy is it that leads to more unemployment, more 
pollution, and a deterioration of our constitutional rights of 
sovereignty?
  I would ask my colleagues to say no to more fast tracks, say no to 
NAFTA for the Americas, say yes to a future for working families and 
jobs in our own communities.

                          ____________________