[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6106-6107]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



THE PRESIDENT HAD IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME, THAT OUR COMMITMENT TO OPEN 
    TRADE MUST BE MATCHED BY A STRONG COMMITMENT TO PROTECTING OUR 
                              ENVIRONMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia). Under a 
previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, this morning constituents of our Ninth 
District of Ohio woke up to reports of more job cuts at our local Jeep 
plant. The Toledo Blade ran two headlines. One reads, ``Jeep 
reductions: Firm warns up to 2,035 Toledo jobs to be cut.'' The second 
headline read, ``Expanded PT Cruiser Output Bypasses City of Toledo for 
Mexico.''
  Welcome to post-NAFTA America. Here we have a company shifting 
production from the United States at the expense of our workers. Make 
no mistake, these are excellent jobs we are talking about. These are 
not minimum-wage jobs with no benefits. These are not low-tech jobs. 
They are the type of jobs that any community in America would fight 
for. These are middle-class jobs. That is what Toledo and the State of 
Ohio did, in fact. They went out and fought for the Jeep jobs. The 
taxpayers invested hundreds of millions of dollars to keep those jobs 
in Ohio and in the United States, and now Chrysler is cutting 2,000 
jobs in Toledo at the same time as it is adding production lines in 
Mexico to make the popular PT Cruiser.
  Now President Bush wants to expand NAFTA, he tells us. Is this the 
promise of NAFTA, 2,000 more families out of work and good jobs in our 
country? Is this what the future looks like under a hemispheric NAFTA 
known as Free Trade of the Americas, FTAA? Is this what you get with 
Fast Track?
  President Bush went to Quebec City last week to push for NAFTA's 
expansion to the free trade of the Americas. He made some interesting 
claims about what his version of free trade envisions. There was some 
talk about labor rights and environmental standards and democracy. That 
sounds well and good, but we need to see concrete action to back up the 
rhetoric.
  In Quebec City, President Bush said it is clear to me that ours is a 
hemisphere united by freedom. How about the freedom of workers to earn 
a living wage and to know that they are protected against workplace 
injury and guaranteed the right to organize the worth of their labor? 
How about the freedom for families to know what is in their food? How 
about the freedom of a mother on the border in Mexico knowing that the 
water is safe to drink and the air fit to breathe? How about the 
freedom for Members of Congress to have access to all the working 
documents and drafts of these agreements, not only the multinational 
giants that helped to negotiate the agreement that we are likely to 
consider?
  In Quebec City, President Bush said, ``Our commitment to open trade 
must be matched by a strong commitment to protecting our environment 
and improving labor standards.'' But then he did a pirouette and he 
said, ``We should not allow labor and environmental codicils to destroy 
the spirit of free trade.''
  He had it right the first time.
  Those of us on the other side of the argument have been saying for 
years that these trade agreements should give individuals the same 
rights as multinational corporations. The President was wrong when he 
said labor and environmental provisions would destroy free trade. If 
free trade cannot accommodate labor and environmental concerns, it does 
not deserve to be known as free.
  If the extension of the right for labor to organize, the right to 
free speech and the right to a safe and livable environment are things 
that would destroy a trade regime, maybe we should reconsider our trade 
priorities. Adding labor and environmental rights as a side agreement 
or included with fig-leaf compromises is completely unacceptable. We 
learned our lesson with NAFTA, the hard way.
  President Bush said, and I quote, ``I am confident I will have trade 
promotion authority by the end of the year because I think most people 
in the United States Congress understand that trade is beneficial to 
our hemisphere.
  ``It is in our Nation's best interest to have the President have 
trade promotion authority,'' he said.
  Congress does understand that trade can be beneficial to our 
hemisphere. We also know it can be unbeneficial. We do not need Fast 
Track to create a trading system that is fair to all nations and 
workers. We need a trading system that will lift up workers everywhere 
and help us maintain our standard of living in America. We need a trade 
agreement that will lift workers up, not leave behind 2,000 more 
families in Toledo while factories in Mexico gear up to meet a demand 
for a very popular vehicle on the backs of an exploited workforce that 
works for slave wages.
  Madam Speaker, our rallying cry as we approach the Free Trade 
Agreement of the Americas debate must be free trade among free people 
and no less.

[[Page 6107]]



                          ____________________