[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 22955]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            ANDEAN TRADE PROMOTION AND DRUG ERADICATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. EVA M. CLAYTON

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, November 16, 2001

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, the Andean Trade Preference Act brought to 
the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives today is poorly written 
and ill-timed. As such, I was disappointed to see it pass the floor of 
the House.
  Let there be no mistake, I am not against free trade. Trade, carried 
out correctly, can be of great benefit to all parties. All members of 
the House of Representatives have seen numerous instances where the 
increase of trade between equal partners is mutually beneficial. 
However, when we do not carefully construct our trade agreements to 
maximize the benefits and minimize the negative effects of trade, we do 
a disservice to hard working Americans and threaten their livelihood.
  By failing to give due consideration to the textile industry in the 
United States and opening it to unfair competition from abroad, this 
bill fails American workers, including a great many in the 1st District 
of North Carolina.
  While some industries and segments of the economy have benefitted 
from free trade in recent years, the American textile industry has been 
hit especially hard. In fact, it has been so buffeted by the winds of 
economic change, a strong dollar, and competition from abroad that its 
very existence is threatened. If we do not act to protect this vitally 
important industry, it may disappear altogether. That is not 
acceptable.
  In just the last 12 months, the United States textile industry has 
lost 60,000 jobs, roughly 10 percent of the domestic workforce. Textile 
states such as North Carolina and the communities that depend on 
textiles have been hit the hardest. For years, the closing of textile 
mills in my district has been a regular occurrence. Unfortunately, the 
long winter that this industry has endured shows no signs of thawing 
and bills such as the Andean Trade Preferences Act threaten to turn 
this winter into a permanent freeze.
  The Andean Trade Promotion Act, by further opening the United States 
market to floods of cheap textile imports, adds insult to injury. The 
result, should the President sign the bill in its current form, will 
only mean more economic loss in the communities of the 1st District of 
North Carolina and additional hardship for many constituents.
  Because of this, I vigorously oppose the bill in its current form.
  I would also like to briefly comment on the timing of the bill. It is 
difficult for me to understand why the leadership brought the Andean 
Trade Preferences Act to the Floor only days before a scheduled vote on 
granting the President Trade Promotion Authority. If anything, by 
ignoring the needs of textile states and communities in the Andean 
Trade Preferences Act, the leadership sends those of us from textile 
states a strong signal that we should not support TPA for the 
President. After failing us on this much smaller bill, what confidence 
can we have that the leadership or the President will do anything 
differently with regard to textiles if granted TPA?
  I take the damaging textile provisions included in the Andean Trade 
Preferences Act as further evidence of why Congress should oppose 
providing the President with Trade Promotion Authority. If there are 
reassurances that can be given that textiles will be given due 
consideration in later negotiations I would welcome them. But until 
that is done in a satisfactory manner I will remain skeptical about 
granting to the President Trade Promotion Authority.




                          ____________________