[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Page 12990]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           AGREEMENT ON TRADE

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last week, amid great fanfare, several 
Members of the House and Senate announced they had reached an agreement 
with the administration on language that facilitates the implementation 
of two trade agreements, and paves the way for the possible 
consideration of additional trade agreements as well as the extension 
of so-called fast-track trade agreement implementing authority.
  No sooner had the announcement been made than questions were raised 
about just what the agreement was. A comparison of the representations 
made by the parties to the agreement revealed several potentially 
contradictory interpretations of the deal. And when details of the 
agreement were sought, it was discovered that there really weren't any, 
that what the parties had agreed to was a set of principles. We now 
understand that the actual details of the agreement may not be fully 
spelled out until legislation implementing the trade agreements is 
presented to Congress for approval. Until then, everyone is free to 
spin this agreement as they wish.
  Given the parties that were involved, hearing the announcement was a 
bit like hearing that the foxes and wolves had reached a deal on 
guarding the hen house. For the most part, the people who were 
negotiating this agreement have a nearly unbroken record of supporting 
the deeply flawed trade policies of the past decade and more. From the 
North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, to the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade, GATT, which created the World Trade Organization, to 
granting China permanent Most Favored Nation status, to the more recent 
agreements like the Central America Free Trade Agreement, the actors in 
this deal have all been singing from the same hymn book. While I don't 
question the good intentions of those who were involved, no one should 
have expected last week's announcement to produce significant changes 
to that hymn book.
  Our trade policy has been disastrous. It has contributed to the loss 
of several million family-supporting jobs in this country. It has left 
communities across my State devastated, and I know the same is true in 
communities around this country.
  Our trade deficit reaches new heights every year, as we send more and 
more of our wealth overseas, much of it in the form of factories that 
provided entire communities with decent, good-paying jobs. I hold 
listening sessions in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year. This 
is my 15th year holding those listening sessions, listening to tens of 
thousands of people from all over Wisconsin. I completed my 1000th of 
those sessions last fall, and I can tell you that there is nearly 
universal frustration and anger with the trade policies we have pursued 
since the late 1980s. Even among those who would have called themselves 
traditional free-traders, it is increasingly obvious that the so-called 
NAFTA model of trade has been a tragic failure.
  I voted against NAFTA, GATT, and permanent most favored nation status 
for China, in great part because I felt they were bad deals for 
Wisconsin businesses and Wisconsin workers. At the time I voted against 
those agreements, I thought they would result in lost jobs for my 
State. But, as I have noted before, even as an opponent of those trade 
agreements, I had no idea just how bad things would be.
  Nor does the problem end with the loss of businesses and jobs. The 
model on which our recent trade agreements have been based 
fundamentally undermines our democratic institutions. It replaces the 
judgment of the people, as reflected in the laws and standards set 
forth by their elected representatives, with rules written by 
organizations dominated by multinational corporations. Food, 
environmental, and safety standards set by our democratic institutions 
are subject to challenge if they conflict with those approved by 
unelected international trade bureaucracies. Even laws that require the 
government to use our tax dollars to buy goods made here, rather than 
overseas, can be challenged.
  Our trade policy is a mess, and it needs to be fixed.
  As bad as our trade policies have been, they have not been partisan 
policies. I wish they were. I wish I could lay the blame at the feet of 
our colleagues in the other party. But Members of both parties have 
aided and abetted these flawed policies. Presidents of both parties 
have advanced them, and Members of Congress from both sides of the 
aisle have approved them.
  It should not come as a shock to anyone, then, that while the 
agreement announced last week was bipartisan, because it was negotiated 
by people who largely supported the flawed trade agreements of recent 
years, it fails to address in a meaningful way the concerns of those 
who have opposed those same agreements.
  It is noteworthy that while the announced agreement is primarily 
related to enhancing international worker standards, not a single union 
has endorsed it. While the agreement reportedly enhances international 
environmental standards, no environmental groups have endorsed it. Nor 
have those business groups that have been critical of our trade 
policies.
  We are making progress, albeit slow progress, in educating the public 
and policymakers on the true nature of our trade agreements. In the 
past, when opponents of these flawed trade deals raised questions about 
the actual provisions in those agreements, supporters were quick to 
play the free trade card and label those who questioned the agreements 
as ``protectionist.''
  This charge resonated with many of our newspaper editorial boards, 
who have parroted the elegant theories of 18th century economist Adam 
Smith.
  But the trade agreements into which we have entered in recent years 
are not simply reductions in tariffs, as Adam Smith envisioned. If 
these agreements were just reductions in tariffs, they could be 
implemented by a bill that is only one or two pages long. Of course, 
that is not the case. These agreements are lengthy. The bills that 
implement them are so massive as to be almost bullet proof. And the 
reason is that they go far beyond merely lowering tariffs. As Thea Lee 
wrote in the Wall Stree Journal:

       We should all understand by now that modern, (post-NAFTA) 
     free-trade agreements are not just about lowering tariffs. 
     They are about changing the conditions attached to trade 
     liberalization, in ways that benefit some players and hurt 
     others. These are not your textbook free-trade deals. These 
     are finely orchestrated special-interest deals that boost the 
     profits and power of multinational corporations, leaving 
     workers, family farmers, many small businesses, and the 
     environment more vulnerable than ever.

  Increasingly, some who blindly accepted these trade agreements in the 
past now are beginning to read the fine print. They recognize the role 
these agreements have played in our skyrocketing trade deficits and the 
loss of millions of jobs. They understand that if we are to have a 
sustainable trade policy, then we must dramatically alter the NAFTA 
model of trade on which our recent trade agreements are based.
  The agreement announced last week does not do that. And until our 
trade agreements better reflect a more sustainable relationship with 
our trading partners as well as the broader interests of our own 
national priorities--keeping businesses and good-paying jobs here, 
ensuring strong protections for our environment, our food safety, and 
even the ability of our democratic institutions to set those national 
priorities--I will continue to oppose them.

                          ____________________