[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23394-23401]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        FAST TRACK PROFITEERING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I will be joined today by several 
Members. I am so far joined by my good friend the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who in his several years in Congress has been a 
leader on trade issues and fighting for American jobs and American 
workers and raising labor standards and environmental standards, both 
in this country and throughout the developing world and in other 
nations around the world.
  Before we talk about fast track, and that is what this special order 
is about, as some of us just could not resist listening to the last 
speakers who, already in the space of 11 months of a Republican 
administration with a Republican House of Representatives and formerly 
a Republican Senate, have already, through their huge tax cuts for the 
rich, have already brought on to our government a deficit. We had 
several years of positive, good budget situations. We are now already 
spending back into deficit because of these huge tax cuts for the rich.
  Second, we are already in a recession. We have had a Republican 
President since January 20th. There are 1 million fewer jobs, 
industrial, manufacturing jobs in this country than there were a year 
ago. And when we talk like this, talk about tax cuts for the rich, my 
Republican friends love to say we are engaging in class warfare. But 
the fact is that every day in this chamber as Republicans try to cut 
spending on unemployment compensation, on health care, on Medicare 
cuts, on cuts that people in this country that need help would benefit 
from, that they make those cuts, at the same time they cut taxes on the 
rich, they commit class warfare in this society; when they are hurting 
working people and hurting the poor and helping their wealthiest 
contributors and wealthiest friends, whether they are the drug 
companies, or whether they are some of the wealthiest people like 
Rupert Murdoch and others that they seem to care so much about. So in 
other words, Mr. Speaker, they so often commit class warfare every day 
in this body. All we do is point out they are doing it, and they just 
seem to bristle from it.
  Mr. Speaker, on the evening of September 11, several gas stations in 
my district and around Northeast Ohio and other places around this 
country raised their prices to $4, $5, $6 a gallon. Many of us in this 
body simply called that as it was, war profiteering, that people would 
take advantage of the events of September 11 to put a little more money 
in their pocket.
  Unfortunately, over the last 8 or 9 weeks, something not much 
different has occurred on Capitol Hill. Many of us have called it 
political profiteering. First, Congress passed a bailout bill that gave 
the airlines $15 billion in cash and loan guarantees. No sacrifices 
were required of airline executives, few

[[Page 23395]]

restrictions were placed on companies that received that money; nothing 
was provided for airline security; no assistance was given to the 
140,000 industry workers who were laid off as a result of the September 
11 attacks.
  Then, in the name of stimulating the economy, this chamber passed new 
tax cuts and accelerated others for the richest people and the largest 
corporations in this country. IBM will get a check from the Federal 
Government under the Republican plan for $1.4 billion. Ford will get a 
check from the Federal Government for $1 billion. GM will get a check 
for $900 million. United and American Airlines, as if they did not do 
all right with the airline bailout bill, will get several hundred 
million dollars more from the Republican tax cut for the rich, while 
they are ignoring unemployed workers.
  But now the political profiteering has reached new heights. In the 
past few months, Mr. Speaker, the Bush Administration's Trade 
Representative, Bob Zoellick, sought to link the trade negotiation 
authority known as fast track to our Nation's anti-terrorism efforts. 
He went further by claiming that people like the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and me and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Solis) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and many of the 
others that will be joining us tonight, that because we oppose fast 
track, we are indifferent to terrorism, and maybe a little bit less 
than patriotic.
  According to Mr. Zoellick, free trade is the way to combat terrorism 
around the world, and, if you do not support free trade, if you do not 
want to do it Mr. Bush's way and Mr. Zoellick's way, if you do not 
support free trade and do it their way, then you do not really support 
American values.
  Earlier today, Republican leadership took a similar route until 
support of fast track. They stated that trade is directly related to 
our battle against the enemies of the United States and the values we 
hold dear; that fast track is essential to our war effort.
  In Qatar are, where the World Trade Organization ministerial was 
recently held, a place chosen by the leaders, the trade ministers, the 
administration, the people who support free trade, in Qatar, the people 
do not have freedom of speech, they do not have freedom of assembly, 
they do not have freedom to publicly worship anything in any other 
religion but Islam, they do not have freedom of association, they do 
not have free elections. Yet the World Trade Organization ignored these 
abuses of personal freedom in selecting Qatar as the host of the 
ministerial.
  Qatar's human rights record is not in line with American values by 
any measurement, but it is familiar territory for many of America's 
corporate trading partners.
  Supporters of fast track say interaction with the developing world 
spreads democracy. But as we engage developing countries in trade and 
investment, democratic countries are losing grounds to dictatorships 
and authoritarian governments.
  Democratic India is less desirable for investors from the West than 
totalitarian China. Democratic Taiwan is losing out to autocratic 
oligarchic Indonesia. In 1989, 57 percent of developing country 
exports, of poor country exports to the United States, came from 
democracies. Since then, that number has fallen 22 percent. Today, 65 
percent of developing countries exports come from authoritarian 
countries.
  The fact is, Western investors want to go to places like China and 
Indonesia, which are dictatorships, by and large, because they have 
pliable workforce, because they have authoritarian governments, because 
they have a docile workforce that cannot organize and bargain 
collectively, and they are very predictable for Western business.
  They do not want to go to India, they do not want to go to Taiwan, 
they do not want to go to South Korea, and, all too often, they do not 
want to stay in this country, because these countries have strong 
environmental laws, strong worker safety laws, labor unions that can 
organize and bargain collectively, and free elections.
  Instead, Western corporations, as they lobby this body, as the 
corporate jets pull into National Airport and Dulles and BWI, and they 
fan the halls of Congress going to office after office after office, 
begging us for fast track, begging us last year, as the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and I worked hard against PNTR for China, 
these companies want to invest in countries that have nonexistent 
environmental standards, that have below poverty wages, that have no 
worker benefits, that have no opportunities to bargain collectively.
  Understand that. Western investors do not like to go to democracies 
where workers can organize, do not like to go to democracies where they 
have good environmental laws and worker safety laws. They like to go to 
China. They like to go to Indonesia.

                              {time}  1815

  They like to invest in Burma. Countries where workers cannot talk 
back, countries where workers cannot vote in elections, countries where 
workers do not have any kinds of rights. That is the way they like it. 
That is why they want fast track.
  Our trade agreements, Mr. Speaker, go to great lengths to protect 
investors and property rights. These agreements do not include the same 
protection for workers or the environment. So in other words, fast 
track provides protections for property rights, protections for 
investors, but no protections for the environment, no protections for 
workers.
  The call for an absolute trade negotiation authority in the name of 
patriotism must be recognized for what it is. When Mr. Zoellick says he 
has to have trade negotiating authority, trade promotion authority to 
combat terrorism and to fight this war, recognize it is pure and simple 
political profiteering.
  We have all watched with pride the indomitable spirit of so many 
Americans in response to the events of September 11. The right response 
to defend the jobs of these Americans and especially the values of 
these Americans is a ``no'' vote on trade promotion authority.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of another issue in the last 5 years that 
I have debated on this floor, and we have had some hot issues, that I 
feel more viscerally about, and I think the gentleman from Ohio would 
agree with me, he has been here longer than I have, than the subject of 
trade. We who oppose fast track do not oppose trade. It is a given. And 
simply put, what we have asked for on every issue since 1997 when there 
obviously were not enough votes to bring it to this floor at 3 o'clock 
in the morning one day in the fall, what we simply asked is that every 
trade agreement be a reciprocal trade agreement. What is good for one 
side is good for the other. But what does that mean?
  To my friends who want to give away the store, I recommend that they 
read the Constitution of the United States. Many times, people stand on 
the floor of this great House and talk about what the Constitution 
says. We talk and refer to the Constitution on guns, we talk about the 
Constitution in terms of who has war powers. Well, the folks back in 
the eighth district in New Jersey sent me to uphold this Constitution, 
not just some parts of it. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution 
says that the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes and 
duties imposed and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common 
defense and general welfare, et cetera; to regulate commerce with 
foreign nations and among the several States, et cetera.
  I did not come here, I say to the gentleman from Ohio, to surrender 
my responsibilities and obligations under the Constitution, because if 
it is trade today, what will it be tomorrow?
  We need to protect that responsibility as defined in article I, 
section 8. There is no consistent administration policy on trade 
besides lower tariffs and cutting quotas. There is no structure; there 
is no plan. It deals with Vietnam, it deals with the Andean countries, 
the WTO, Pakistan, our newly found friends, all of which do not take 
into account the wishes of the

[[Page 23396]]

American worker. Cost-benefit analyses just are not there.
  Congress cannot allow this administration to craft trade laws without 
our input under the Constitution. The only reason for fast track is 
that they want to add things they know that the Congress and the 
American people do not want. We are patriotic Americans. We are loyal 
to the President. We are loyal to the commander in chief. To question 
the loyalty of Members of this Congress for being opposed to fast 
track, to me is shameless.
  We are the people's House. We are directly elected by the people. We 
hear from those out of work, and we must respond to their needs. 
Americans want us to keep our voice. We must keep our voice. This job 
belongs to us. The only way our leverage will be felt is to oppose fast 
track.
  Despite overwhelming evidence, the current trade policies have 
resulted in massive trade deficits. No one on any side of the argument 
denies that. Job losses. Just take a look at what NAFTA did to jobs in 
this country. In my State of New Jersey, we have lost 84,749 jobs. That 
is according to the Department of Labor. This is not anything that was 
made up. That is not an illusion. Under two free trade administrations 
we have lost that many jobs. Imports have risen between 1994 and 2000 
by 80.5 percent, and exports went up 60 percent. We have a huge trade 
deficit.
  An example of the impact our Nation sees under these disastrous trade 
laws as we surrender our rights one after the other, just look at the 
VF Corporation, the well-known jeans producer. They are cutting 13,000 
jobs worldwide. They are closing plants in the United States and, 
according to their own release, to cut costs, they will increase 
offshore manufacturing from 75 to 85 percent. They are certainly glad 
we do not require labor standards for our trading partners. In fact, as 
the gentleman from Ohio pointed out, it is quite interesting to see 
what our trade ambassador had to say about that.
  Apparently the trade ambassador, who appeared in the WTO meeting at 
Doha, says that labor rights should not make it into the negotiations 
on trade. Have we lost our way? Are we not a country of free 
individuals? Labor and environment are not just social issues. They are 
issues that bind humanity. They are issues that we feel are no less 
important than any other.
  Two weeks ago, 410 House Members voted to ask the United States Trade 
Representative to preserve the ability of the United States to enforce 
rigorously its trade laws and should ensure that United States exports 
are not subject to the abusive use of trade laws by other countries. 
Not even this important antidumping mandate was needed at the Doha 
conference.
  I want to conclude at this point, Mr. Speaker. Recently Secretary 
Powell, who all of us in this Chamber have the greatest amount of 
respect for, he stated some very powerful words I am about to quote. He 
said, ``Fast track is going to be viewed internationally as a test of 
the President's leadership at a time when there is all sorts of events 
going on.'' A better test is his ability to do what is right for 
working Americans. The real test of leadership is to make bipartisan 
policy to help our unemployed brothers and sisters. Do not let this 
scare tactic fool anyone. The President can show leadership by working 
with the Congress, not taking them out of the equation, not usurping 
article I, section 8, as if we did not exist.
  Mr. Speaker, I said the same thing on the floor last session when 
Bill Clinton was the President. This is a bipartisan attack on our very 
rights as Members of the United States Congress. I do not accept it. I 
am prepared to fight day in and day out to make sure we begin the 
process of protecting jobs in the United States of America. This 
Constitution either is meaningful or we will selectively decide what we 
will adhere to, and then we will become less of a democracy.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman from New Jersey very much for his very well thought-out 
remarks.
  We are joined also by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), an 
old friend, who first established his trade predictions during the 
first fight against NAFTA when we almost defeated that trade agreement 
which has been shown to be dangerous to this country. We also have a 
new member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), an iron 
worker himself who understands trade from all aspects; and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) from the other end of the State. 
They will be joining the discussion in a moment.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make one comment before yielding to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). The gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pascrell) mentioned current trade policies and what happened in 
Doha and the steel industry. When we see that this Congress voted 410 
to 4, as he said, to tell them, to instruct President Bush's trade 
representative in Qatar not to mess with U.S. dumping laws, he 
immediately put it on the table for negotiations. It is not difficult 
to understand why LTV, where many people in my district work, and the 
rest of the American steel industry, is in trouble when we pass these 
kinds of trade policies, and the President has not moved fast enough on 
section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act. The President has refused to support 
and this Congress has not passed 808, the Steel Revitalization Act, 
which is absolutely necessary to save this industry, and now these same 
free traders are pushing more of the same, as if our trade policy has 
worked. It has not worked. Our trade deficit is almost $370 billion. So 
the President's answer and Trade Representative Zoellick's answer is 
let us do more of it. That simply makes no sense.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank my colleagues for appearing here with us tonight. I especially 
appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) on 
this issue and the compassion of the gentleman for the working men and 
women throughout our district in Ohio, and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) has always been an expert on these issues.
  To just pick up a little bit on what the gentleman had said on these 
trade initiatives and the WTO rules on antidumping, basically what it 
says is Congress instructed the Trade Representative, when you go to 
Doha next week not to give up on antidumping laws. We need them. We 
have other countries illegally dump their product in this country like 
they are doing right now with steel. It was very, very specific. But if 
we go to the text of the agreement that was in Doha this past week and 
go to paragraph 28, and I am quoting now, they are going to clarify and 
improve WTO antidumping and subsidy rules, an agreement not to use 
antidumping measures on the same issue once the case has been rejected. 
The total disregard for Congress's instructions on this issue, even 
after over 400 Members of Congress said do not give this up, do not 
give this up.


  So we can see while they are saying, we need the authority to 
negotiate, give us your authority, Congress, because only you can 
approve it, but give up the authority under fast track, and we will do 
the best agreement possible and all you have to do is come back here 
and say yes or no; we cannot amend under fast track. We just give them 
instructions: over 400 Democrats and Republicans say do not give this 
up, and they gave it up.

                              {time}  1830

  So now they want to come with a fast track legislation. If you just 
take a look a little bit at what is going on and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown) is correct. We were here and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Strickland) was here in 1993, 1994; and a lot of us thought NAFTA, 
the North American Free Trade Agreement, would be a horrendous thing 
for this country.
  I am talking a little bit about my own northern Michigan district. We 
have lost manufacturing jobs, agriculture jobs, timber, steel. We are 
here with a letter. They say even if you lose your job because of 
foreign imports, we have this trade adjustment assistance. It will help 
you out, extend your unemployment and do all these things.

[[Page 23397]]

  I have a letter right here, November 27, to the Honorable Elaine 
Chow, Secretary of Labor. It was sent to her because we have been 
waiting since June 9 for a decision, June 9, almost 6 months. One 
hundred workers from the Besser Company in Alpena, Michigan are at the 
end of their state unemployment. The State has cut back unemployment. 
In Michigan we are down to $300 a week now. That is what they have to 
live on. That is $1,200 a month to try to support their family. That is 
true unemployment, and we are running out.
  Everyone agrees they lost their job because of the flood of imports 
in the lumber company, in the lumber industry; therefore, they should 
get trade adjustment. It was a no-brainer case, and here we are still 
waiting, still waiting for a decision on trade adjustment. We have this 
letter here. We will make some more phone calls tomorrow. Hopefully, we 
can move this along.
  It was NAFTA, TAA. That was one of the big selling points. Do not 
worry if you should lose your job. We will take care of it. I think the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) was correct on Congress giving 
up its right underneath the Constitution to approve, amend any 
agreement before us. Under Fast Track we cannot. That is a good reason 
not to vote for it.
  Let us talk a little bit about steel because I know that has been a 
big issue lately. I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and all of us have been working 
hard on the steel caucus to try to come to grips with the steel 
industry since the last 3 or 4 years has just been plagued with this 
flood of imports on the hot road end, on cold steel, on rod, on wire. 
You name it, they have been doing it.
  As we sat there yesterday in a meeting with Secretary Evans and we 
will give the Bush administration some credit. Secretary Evans and his 
assistants have come up and met with us often. They have investigated. 
The ITC, International Trade Commission, says they are dumping 
illegally in our country. We must do something and we will.
  But if we take a look at it, and I said, I have been hearing this 
since 1998. I am sort of frustrated. You have 232, 232 trade orders out 
there; 131 relate to steel. Sixty percent of the trade orders issued by 
the U.S. Department of Commerce said stop. You are doing this 
illegally, 131 times; and we have no relief.
  What about putting countervailing duties on imports coming in? We 
have 45 countervailing duties in this country; 28 are related to steel. 
So we are slapping duties on it. We have 131 trade violations, and we 
are still losing every 9 days a steel mill or an iron ore mine, like I 
just lost up in northern Michigan just before Thanksgiving, LTV. They 
are restructuring their situation. They are 25 percent owner in the 
mines in northern Michigan. There is only eight iron ore mines left in 
the United States; two are in my district. LTV is a 25 percent owners 
in the Empire mine. They are also a big customer of those iron ore 
pellets. You need iron ore to make steel.
  They announced just before Thanksgiving 770 miners will lose their 
job by the end of the month; 120 salary workers are gone. That is 890 
jobs in my little community of Palmer, Michigan, up in the Upper 
Peninsula of Michigan.
  We know they will have trouble getting their TA benefits if Besser is 
any idea. You go back to them and I say we have 131 orders out there 
saying you cannot dump steel, but they are still doing it. We have 28 
countervailing duties that they cannot do this. They are still doing 
it.
  What is our relief? We are finally going to have a 201. I have 
testified before the ITC, and I know all of you have too, on that, and 
saying, look, we need strict, drastic measures. You have all these 
duties. You have all these trade orders. It is time to put in quotas. 
It is time to put in tariffs and you have to act now. The President 
will get that 201 remedy situation or remedy order on or about December 
10. He then has 60 days to make up his mind. We urge him to move 
quickly. Every 9 days we lose a steel mill. Every 9 days another mine 
goes out. There is going to be nothing left.
  I believe we have 27 steel mills right now in bankruptcy. Banks are 
not lending them money. They cannot keep their mills going. They are 
shutting them down. And then we just take a look at NAFTA and what has 
happened after NAFTA. I have been just talking about steel.
  In the State of Michigan we have lost over 152,000 jobs. And there is 
a list here, Table III. They talk about agriculture, mining, 
construction. Let us just go to manufacturing. Lumber and woods 
products. I have the mines and I have timber. In lumber and wood 
products we lost 118,000 jobs since 1994 under NAFTA. Paper and allied 
products, again paper industry big in my district, we lost over 33,000 
jobs since 1994.
  Stone, clay, glass, concrete products. We make concrete up in my 
district. Great limestone mining, 84,000 jobs. Primary metal products, 
23,000. Blast furnaces, basic steel products, over 107,000 jobs in the 
last 6 years.
  Motor vehicles and equipment, probably what Michigan is known most 
for, over 200,000 jobs. The administration comes to us and tells us, 
give us Fast Track Authority. We will negotiate. We will make sure our 
trade laws are enforced. That is what we heard in NAFTA. Here are the 
end result.
  We have all of these trade laws, 131 violations on our books; and we 
cannot get any relief. Where do we go with this?
  We must monitor the authority we give any U.S. Trade Representative 
and ensure that certain special interests such as brand name 
pharmaceuticals that we have not even talked about yet tonight, they 
will not gain further concessions at the expense of American workers 
and the American consumers. No matter what it is, pharmaceuticals, 
manufacturing, mining, construction, agriculture, forestry, fishing, we 
have lost. And once again they tell us, trust us. We will take care of 
it. The last opportunity we had for trust was Doha last week. We said, 
no more antidumping. Do not give in to that. Over 400 of 435 Members 
said, do not do it. They did it.
  How can we now turn and say let us support Fast Track Authority when 
a trade representative who we said not to do it just did it to us?
  American people, Members of Congress, we have to wake up. We are not 
protectionists. We are not isolationists. We believe in trade, but it 
is has to be fair. When you have 131 orders on the books, that is not 
fair. When our mines are shutting down, our steel mills are shutting 
down and our hands are tied and we cannot do anything, is that fair? I 
say not. And I say bringing forth a proposal such as Fast Track 
Authority for this President to continue trade negotiations is just 
unconscionable, especially in these economic times. We are in a 
recession.
  We are in a recession. And you can blame September 11. It was well 
before September 11. But just take a look at what happened. And I 
believe the state of mind we are in right now and the state of our 
economy is due to these trade laws, is due to the layoffs in the steel 
industry, in the mining industry, the lumber industry, the furniture 
industry. You name it.
  I certainly want to join my colleagues here tonight and I look 
forward to hearing their comments. I will stay in case there are other 
comments that maybe we can go back and forth on some of these issues.
  I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). 
He has been a stalwart in helping out here. And between WTO and GATT 
and NAFTA and NTR or whatever you want to call them. The bottom line is 
the American people, our hard-working men and women in the districts we 
represent, are not protected with these countervailing tariffs, with 
these steel orders, with trade adjustment. When it comes right down to 
it there is nothing there for the American worker. We should not give 
up our right as Members of Congress to modify and demand tough 
enforcement issues, especially since last week when we told us not to 
do it and they sold us out at Doha.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for 
his 9 years of leadership against bad trade issue and for fair trade 
and better

[[Page 23398]]

working conditions and environmental safeguards for Americans and for 
people around the world.
  One thing that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) said that was 
particularly important, and I will then yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), we should think about this. When he said, we 
in this Congress on behalf of American people, 410 votes in support for 
said to our negotiators in Qatar said that we wanted to stand strong on 
our steel antidumping laws. And we demanded that on behalf of the 
American people. Those demands were totally ignored by the 
administration.
  The administration now says, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) 
said this, the administration said, give us Fast Track. You can count 
on us to protect American workers with Fast Track. You can count on us 
to be fair. You can count on us to protect the environment and workers 
and all that around the world.
  Well, the fact is can we count on them to do that when we saw already 
the kind of betrayal from our trade negotiators. Not to mention that 
this President does not seem very concerned domestically about 
environmental laws, does not seem concerned domestically about food 
safety, does not seem concerned domestically about labor standards.
  This is the same President that tried for 10 months tried to weaken 
arsenic laws, and tried to allow the mining and chemical companies to 
allow more arsenic in the drinking water, and we are going to trust 
them to protect the environment all over the world and in this country? 
I do not think so. And that is really the reason, as the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) said, that Fast Track is really a betrayal of our 
values.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), 
who already in his couple of months in Congress, he came here in early 
October, I believe, late September, and he has already jumped in the 
trade fight because he knows that is important to the people of 
Massachusetts and the people of our country.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Brown) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and all others, including the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), for the great work they have done.
  I am new to this debate. I am new. I have watched the work done by 
all of the Members here, both in this debate and in previous debates 
over NAFTA. I commend you for living up to your constitutional 
obligation to represent the people of your districts.
  As I said, I am new to this debate; but I am not new to this issue. 
In my own life prior to the privilege of my office now, I was an iron 
worker for 18 years; and over that 18 years I worked at the Quincy 
shipyard just outside of Boston. And I saw that job go away with 
thousands of others from that shipyard because of foreign competition 
and the fact that the American shipyards were paying their workers 
well. And companies could go offshore to exploit low-wage labor.
  I also worked at the General Motors plant out in Framingham, which is 
closed now and they are making those cars down in Mexico now.
  I worked in Michigan in some of the auto industry plants there as 
well, and I understand those plants have closed and many of them have 
been relocated in Mexico. I also worked in a couple of the steel mills 
in Indiana and in Chicago, the Inland Steel and the U.S. Steel plants 
which I now understand are closed. There is a pattern developing here; 
and at this rate I am afraid that at some point there will be my 
counterpart in Mexico City taking my congressional responsibility as 
well.
  The point made by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) needs 
to be emphasized. And that is that the United States Constitution says 
that Congress shall, not may, not might, it shall have the power to 
regulate commerce with foreign nations; and it shall have the power to 
make all necessary laws proper for carrying out those powers.
  This fast track mechanism, and this is just a procedural rule, would 
obligate us to abdicate our responsibilities on behalf of our 
constituents. Basically, what we would do we would give up those rights 
and those responsibilities to the very people who sent us here. I need 
to join the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and others who have said that I can say also 
that my constituents did not send me here to give away their rights and 
responsibilities, to walk away from a job just because it is complex. 
It is difficult. It is hard. We knew that that was the job we were 
taking when we ran for office.
  This bill is counterintuitive. It flies in the face of our 
responsibility both under the Constitution and as a moral obligation to 
the people who we represent.
  Another part of this fast track framework that is poorly designed is 
the fact that while the obligation under the Constitution is given to 
us as Members, also many of the other responsibilities and procedures 
that are set up around the Congress guarantee an open and honest debate 
around trade matters. The Constitution requires that we publish a 
journal of the actions taken here in the Congress.
  If you look at Fast Track, Fast Track allows these negotiations to be 
done in secret, if they are given to the U.S. Trade Representative.

                              {time}  1845

  These are secret negotiations and they are done in a back room, 
without the direct representatives of the people being in those 
negotiations.
  It just is an unseemly process that we initiate by supporting a Fast 
Track-type procedure, and we do not need to look far to see examples of 
the flaws of that process. We can look directly at NAFTA. We have 
evidence now to see how this Fast Track procedure plays out.
  We see it in the fact that there are no enforceable labor standards 
in NAFTA nor in the bill before us to expand NAFTA to 34 other 
countries. There are no firm mandatory or enforceable labor standards 
in this bill. There are no firm and mandatory and enforceable 
environmental standards in this bill. Those have been left out.
  There is language in here, very fluffy language, that raises the 
issue of labor standards, raises the issue of environmental standards, 
but does not allow us in negotiations on these trade matters to require 
other countries to respect their workers and to respect the environment 
in those countries.
  We can look at what NAFTA has done for Maquiladora, the workers 
there. Although there was the great promise of the raising the buying 
power of the average Mexican worker, we still find in Maquiladora that 
the autoworkers in the Maquiladora are making an average of 67 cents an 
hour.
  I do not have any U.S. autoworkers in Massachusetts anymore. Those 
jobs are all gone over the border. The U.S. autoworkers today, those 
left in Michigan and other places across the country, should not be 
made to compete with workers making 60 cents an hour, living in 
substandard conditions, with no working conditions, with no right, no 
voice in their workplace. This bill is completely absent any 
enforceable standard.
  The American worker should not be required to compete with 67-cents-
an-hour workers or slave labor or child labor in these other countries. 
Yet that is exactly what this bill allows. That is exactly what Fast 
Track and the ministerial directive that came out of Doha, that is just 
exactly what is allowed here.
  The American public should not be faced with the risk of trucks 
coming over the Mexican border without the safety requirements and the 
regulatory obligations of the trucks that we have in this country that 
are registered in any of the 50 States, and we should not allow 
produce, food products, to come into this country that do not meet the 
regulatory standards that we have set up in this country.
  We have seen examples of that. I know that in Michigan just recently, 
we had an incident where 200 people were affected by eating 
strawberries that had been contaminated with the

[[Page 23399]]

hepatitis A virus and that were allowed into the country because they 
did not have to undergo the FDA process and the sanitation process that 
products here in the United States are required to go under. We should 
also realize that of the 4.4 million trucks a year that come in from 
Mexico into the United States, we have the ability right now to inspect 
2 percent, about 88,000 trucks out of 4.4 million. We do not have the 
ability to check the licenses, the qualifications of those drivers, the 
safety mechanisms on those trucks, and there is just a complete lack of 
accountability. That is the bottom line.
  This Fast Track bill takes away the accountability. We are unable to 
oversee or guarantee that the American workers and the American public 
are being protected, and we need to do whatever we can to recapture the 
power and the accountability on behalf of the American people.
  I think the easiest way to do that would be to defeat this Fast Track 
proposal.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Lynch) points out something very important about democratic values. At 
the beginning of this Special Order we talked about political 
profiteering that some people, the President, the White House and the 
Bush administration, have said that we need to have Fast Track to wage 
this war against terrorism. Yet as the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Lynch) so deftly pointed out, much about trade negotiations and 
much, not just writing these trade agreements, but actually some of the 
appeals in front of the tribunals and the three-judge panels at the 
World Trade Organization and the NAFTA tribunals and all are conducted 
in secret.
  We talk about American values. How can we talk about American values 
and then turn over our sovereignty on issues of public health and 
issues of water, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) in his 
district, which borders three of the Great Lakes, how can we turn over 
those decisions on environment, on food safety, as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) said; on constitutional issues, as the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) said.
  We are turning those issues over to panels who are people we do not 
elect, who are making decisions in secret, and then often do not have 
to publish their findings. And that runs exactly counter to our 
government, to our way of life, to our values, and to our beliefs as 
Americans.
  I would like to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Strickland), who many years ago during the NAFTA debate used to join 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), who could not be here tonight, used to join us 
on these Fast Track issues. I would add that the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), who is a candidate for Governor of Michigan, 
will be leaving this body at the end of 2002 and has been the real 
leader on trade issues. He said he could not be here tonight, but he is 
in there fighting against these bad trade agreements on behalf of 
Michigan workers and on behalf of all of us.
  So I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), 
from the other end of Ohio, from southern Ohio.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we do represent common 
areas of our Nation, areas where there has been strong manufacturing in 
the past and where people are now losing their jobs and where there is 
great distress. Sometimes I wonder how long the American people are 
going to be willing to put up with us as they watch what is happening. 
It seems that the decisions that we make in this Chamber so often favor 
other countries and other peoples rather than our own country and our 
own people.
  It really bothers me that we would make decisions in this Chamber 
that would put the American worker at a disadvantage to workers 
elsewhere in this world. That really troubles me, and I am wondering 
how long the American people are going to put up with it.
  Now, we are going to be facing a decision rather soon and the 
pressure is building here in Washington, D.C., the lobbying is taking 
place, the administration is sending people up here to try to twist 
arms and to convince people that they need to support this Fast Track 
authority. And we are going to be making a decision, and it is my hope 
that as the American people observe what is happening, that they will 
let their voices be heard.
  And how can they do that? Well, the old-fashioned way. They can call 
their representatives. They can send e-mails. They can send letters. 
They may arrive 2 or 3 weeks late, given the current circumstances. 
They can call their Representatives and their Senators and ask for a 
personal meeting in their offices, in their States, in their districts, 
because unless the American people express themselves, I am afraid this 
will be pushed through this House and through this Congress, and that 
once again the American people will be placed at a great disadvantage.
  I am the son of a steelworker. I grew up in a family of nine kids. My 
dad had a fifth-grade education, but he worked in a steel mill and he 
was able to support us. That steel mill is closed today. There is not a 
single man or woman or family that is being supported by that steel 
mill, because it does not exist.
  Even today as we met in our Steel Caucus, we heard the fact that if 
something is not done, over the next 12 months the American steel 
industry will be decimated, will cease to be a major industry in this 
country. Yet we are on the verge of being forced to take a position 
that will extend this, what I would call obscene trade policy that we 
currently have in place.
  When are we going to stop and say what is best for the American 
worker, the American family? When are we going to do that? When are we 
going to have an administration that is willing to put Americans first 
when it comes to these kinds of issues?
  We go to a union hall and it is very common in my district when I go 
to a union hall to have union members stand and pledge allegiance to 
the flag. We are urging American school children across this Nation to 
be loyal to our Nation and to express that loyalty by pledging 
allegiance to the flag. Sometimes I think we should request that these 
corporate board members who belong to these multinational 
organizations, who have no particular loyalty to a country or a set of 
democratic principles or a political philosophy, maybe they should be 
asked to pledge allegiance to the flag as well.
  I am just really getting increasingly concerned about the fact that 
over the years, in an incremental manner, we are more and more giving 
up the power that we have within this Chamber to protect our 
constituents, to make sure that when we cast a vote, when we make a 
decision, it is in the best interests of the people of southern Ohio or 
northern Ohio or the upper peninsula of Michigan. We cannot give up 
this authority. We ought not to. I believe it is a violation of our 
constitutional responsibilities and our oath of office to just 
relinquish this responsibility to an administration. And I am not just 
being critical of this administration because, quite frankly, I think 
we were critical of the past administration when it came to trade 
policies and the willingness to stand up for the American worker.
  We have got a responsibility as elected representatives to do the 
right thing, but I am afraid we will not do the right thing if the 
American people do not make their voices heard. It is my hope that in 
the next few hours and days, that the American people will call and 
write and request visits with their Congresspersons and their Senators 
so that we can stop this and we can once again start reasserting 
ourselves as the legitimate spokespersons for the people who send us 
here to represent them.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for his attention 
on this issue for many, many years, and he is very knowledgeable about 
it, as is my Congress friend from the great State of Michigan. I live 
in a district where the steel mill is already gone. Some of my 
colleagues live in districts where there is still hope to maintain

[[Page 23400]]

the jobs, and we will not be able to do it if this Fast Track 
legislation passes.
  We will see more and more jobs going to other countries where those 
functions are performed by people who earn little more than slave labor 
salaries, where children are abused, where the environment is raped, 
where there are no protections in terms of worker rights. How can we do 
that and say that we are representing the United States of America? I 
do view this as a patriotic issue and one that calls upon me to oppose 
this effort to take away and to strip from us our legitimate right as 
representatives of the people to stand up for them.
  I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for this time and for 
giving me a chance to express myself.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to reemphasize something the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) said. As this debate winds down 
into next week when the Republican leadership has said it will be 
scheduled for a floor vote, we have seen the kind of strong-arm 
lobbying from the President, from the President personally, from 
administration officials, Cabinet members, up and down the 
administration, throughout the administration, promises, all kinds of 
promises, everything from highway projects to support of legislation, 
to jobs, to all kinds of things that some of these people promise.
  We have also seen strong-arm lobbying from America's largest 
corporations. Every time there is a trade vote here, people at National 
Airport used to tell me they saw more corporate jets at that airport 
than anytime during the year, as corporate executives know that these 
trade agreements mean they can move more jobs overseas, make more money 
as they hire low-wage workers with no environmental laws, with no food 
safety laws, with no kind of worker safety laws.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. STRICKLAND. I would just like to point out that many of these 
corporations are in fact multinational in nature. They have no loyalty 
to this country in particular or to any set of democratic principles or 
anything else, except the bottom line, and we allow these multinational 
corporations to influence American domestic economic policy. It is just 
absolutely wrong.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, one CEO of a major corporation 
said a couple of years ago, ``I wish I could locate my corporate 
headquarters on an island that is part of no country.'' He does not 
mind being an American when he comes to this institution for subsidies, 
for tax cuts personally or corporate tax cuts, but when it comes time 
to employing American workers or living under the sovereignty of this 
Nation, he seems a little bit less interested.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and I, a moment ago, and for 
years, actually, but a moment ago were talking about food safety. And 
food safety is a particularly important issue. We have legislation with 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and some others because we 
are concerned about country-of-origin labeling; we are concerned about 
inspections, as more and more fruits and vegetables come into the 
United States.
  Because of budget cuts, and because of increased imports, and because 
of poor trade laws, only seven- tenths of 1 percent of food coming into 
this country is inspected at the border, much less than that inspected 
anyplace else. That means one out of every 140 crates of broccoli, one 
out of every 140 crates of fruit, one out of every 140 boxes of any 
kind of food gets inspected at the border. It is a serious problem, and 
the gentleman from Michigan will tell us more about what all of this 
means with Fast Track.
  Mr. STUPAK. Well, with Fast Track, if we take a look at the proposed 
legislation, H.R. 3005, the legislation that is going to be proposed, 
when we get to environmental standards or inspection, it is all 
voluntary. And when we have voluntary negotiating on objectives, on the 
environment, on food safety, it usually means nothing will happen. If 
anything, when we look closely at H.R. 3005, it is a step backwards. We 
do not have an opportunity to enforce the laws that we have because 
they are all subject to negotiations. Under H.R. 3005, when it comes to 
inspections, that is subject to negotiation. Even our laws which 
prevent adulterated or bad food that does not meet our standards or 
uses pesticides not allowed in this country, that is subject to 
negotiation. It is voluntary under these proposals.
  The gentleman from Ohio talked about food coming into this country, 
that seven-tenths of 1 percent is ever inspected. Well, when they do 
broccoli, they just take a crate and drop it on the ground. If bugs 
come out, they impound it. If no bugs come out, it goes on. For years, 
we have asked for sophisticated inspection of food coming into this 
country. Let us not just drop the crates. Let us do a quick chemical 
test to see what pesticides are in it that we are consuming. Let us put 
the country of origin on this food. Let us have inspectors there and be 
able to impound the food for some time so we can have an opportunity to 
do a proper inspection.
  All that is happening is a quick check, and then we are sending the 
truck on. By the time they do a sophisticated check, that truck is 
already hundreds of miles into the United States and has probably 
dropped its load. They do not know where it is because they do not have 
the order there in front of them. How do we recall it then? It is 
consumed.
  We had that in Michigan with Guatemalan strawberries and our hot 
lunch program, and hundreds of kids were ill. Well, it is too late 
then. And guess what? It was really a U.S. company that imported the 
food. The U.S. company was supposed to inspect it, but they never did. 
Tainted water had been used to grow the crops, and that is what we 
have. We do not even have inspections overseas where this food comes 
from.
  It is amazing. We have worked, as the gentleman said, for a number of 
years, and we have the bill again this year; but it is frustrating when 
we see that less than 1 percent is ever inspected. It is wintertime 
now, and where will most of our fruits and vegetables for our salads 
come from?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. When the gentleman and I started this conversation 
3 or 4 years ago, 2 percent of food was inspected. This Congress 
continues to cut the budget on food inspection.
  And understand it is not just the adulterated food coming in. The way 
the trade law works on food safety, there are certain pesticides in the 
United States that are banned for use. It is illegal to put them on 
fields. It is not illegal to make them. So in many cases, American 
manufacturers manufacture these pesticides, sell them to Guatemala to 
spray on the strawberries or on the raspberries. Those products then 
come back into the United States with pesticide residues, making the 
farmers sick that apply the pesticides, and then coming across the 
border.
  We do not spend the money at the border to detect either adulterated 
food, anything from fecal matter to other kinds of contaminants, nor do 
they detect any kinds of residues from pesticides. And that is one of 
the reasons that in this country, and it is not all foreign food, but 
in this country 5,000 people a year die from food-borne illnesses and 
300,000 people go to the hospitals with food-borne illnesses.
  Not blaming it all on foreign food by a long shot. We should do a 
better inspection job with domestic food. But foreign food is a part of 
it, and food coming from abroad is a growing problem because we are 
importing more. That is why we get vegetables and fruits in the winter, 
because we are importing them. That is a good thing. It makes Americans 
healthier. But give Americans the confidence that our food will be safe 
by passing trade legislation that upgrades food safety standards 
everywhere, rather than pulling our standards down to the weaker 
standards of other countries.
  We have about 3 minutes, so I will yield to my friend, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I want to say quickly that I think the American 
consumer deserves information. When they go to the grocery store, as a 
consumer

[[Page 23401]]

they deserve the right to know where that food has come from.
  I was talking with one of my constituents over the weekend; and he 
said to me, you know, I would pay a little more for a television set 
that was made in America by American workers if I could find one. It is 
just unconscionable that we have reached this place.
  But in terms of country-of-origin labeling, that is so basic. And if 
we cannot give this kind of information to the American consumer, then 
we will have failed them.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Just give more information to people.
  In closing, I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Lynch), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), who is here on the 
other side of the aisle, who has always been a strong opponent of bad 
free trade laws.
  I would close by saying, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) 
said, corporate CEOs, the President, cabinet officials will all be 
lobbying this institution big time in the next week. I hope that coming 
out of this Special Order tonight that people will understand better 
what our trade policy does to our values and our way of life, and that 
the American people will rise to the occasion and continue to push 
Members of Congress to do the right thing next week when we vote down 
Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority.

                          ____________________