William Lipinski

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, a recent report compiled by some of America's leading economic, environmental, and labor authorities has confirmed what many people, including myself, have known since 1994-- NAFTA has failed. ``The Failed Experiment: NAFTA at Three Years,'' a comprehensive analysis of the trade pact, is a cooperative effort of the Economic Policy Institute, Institute for Policy Studies, the Sierra Club, U.S. Business and Industrial Council Educational Foundation, the International Labor Rights Fund, and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. It should be required reading for all Members of Congress as we debate and vote on giving fast-track negotiating authority to the President as he prepares to expand NAFTA to Chile and other Latin American nations. The portrait of NAFTA that these organizations have rendered is not pretty, but it is hardly surprising to those who have kept a close watch on its corrosive effect on not only the United States, but Mexico and Canada as well. The even-handed analysis in this report has shown what many have instinctively known since NAFTA went into effect in 1994--this deal has cost us dearly in American jobs. It is estimated that there has been a net loss of 400,000 jobs due to NAFTA. And not only has NAFTA cost us jobs, but it has put a crimp in the standard of living of other workers. As our trade deficit has exploded to $39 billion with Mexico and Canada in 1996, United States wages have continued to head south. The ``Failed Experiment'' again demonstrates the link between trade deficits and stagnating wages among all workers. NAFTA has accelerated this trend, and has made is much easier for American manufacturers to pack up and leave when workers begin to demand wage fairness. When faced with bargaining with a union, 15 percent of firms actually closed part or all of their plant, which is triple the rate of the late 1980's. And what of the promises of assistance to workers displaced by NAFTA? According to the Department of Labor, only 5,300 workers have received NAFTA transitional adjustment assistance. Clearly, these programs have only helped a tiny fraction of the people they were intended to reach. The ``Failed Experiment'' also catalogs how NAFTA has threatened our health, safety, and environment. For instance, maquiladora manufacturing slums in northern Mexico have contributed to cross-border pollution in places such as El Paso, TX, where the ozone level is now at dangerous levels 75 percent of the time. Due to a lack of United States inspectors, unsafe food has streamed into this country from Mexico, with the recent strawberry contamination scare being just one example of the problem. More than 7 percent of all crop imports from Mexico are estimated to contain illegal pesticides, with such meal-time fixtures as lettuce and carrots at well over 10 percent. In addition, more than a quarter of Mexican trucks that roll into Texas each day are loaded with hazardous materials such as corrosives, chemicals, explosives, jet fuel, poisons, and toxic wastes. These trucks are required to only meet Mexico's lax safety standards. For example, Mexico does not require tractor-trailers to have front brakes. Only a last minute decision in 1995 by President Clinton, under pressure from myself and other Members of Congress, prevents Mexican tractor-trailer trucks from entering the United States. Perhaps if our trading partners had seen some improvement in the standard of living of their citizens during the last 3 years, there would have been some benefit from NAFTA. However, the study paints a grim picture of the free trade ``boom'' for the people of Mexico and Canada. Despite the flow of American jobs and capital to our north and south, the average worker has benefited little, if not at all. In Mexico, the average wage has plummeted since 1993, from $2.40 to $1.51 per hour. In addition, the last 3 years have seen the loss of 2 million jobs and the destruction of 28,000 small businesses. Part of these problems are attributable to the Mexican peso devaluation of 1995, but as the ``Failed Experiment'' explains so well, the financial crisis was an inevitable part of Mexico's NAFTA plan. The Mexican Government purposely kept the peso's value too high for too long for a number of reasons, but mainly in the hopes of impressing upon the world that its economy was in better shape than it really was. The bottom had to fall out of the peso after the treaty was approved in order for Mexico to attract the foreign investment it so desperately wanted and make Mexican exports cheaper to other countries. Unfortunately, this type of cynical mentality still runs Mexico, and the signs for another peso crash and more misery for working Mexicans are on the horizon. Meanwhile, our northern neighbor, Canada, has seen a steady decline in its standard of living since joining the United States as the original signatories of NAFTA in 1989. The Canadians have been mired in a recession with unemployment hovering at around 10 percent and the country's comprehensive social safety net is being dismantled in the name of competitiveness. Canada's policies and practices have been harmonized with the rest of North America's--downward. As Congress examines extending fast-track negotiating authority, I urge my colleagues to read ``Failed Experiment'' and keep in mind the unpleasant track record of this trade pact for not only the United States, but all its participants.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of a caring, dedicated woman from my State of Illinois--Mary F. Jones. Mary Jones had dedicated 25 years of service to the Illinois pro-life movement. Over the years, Mary Jones proved to be a invaluable member of the Illinois Federation for Right to Life [IFRL] cause through her volunteerism with St. Monica's Center and Springfield Right to Life. When the Life Center opened its doors in 1986, Mary Jones was brought out 3 years of retirement from her 35 years of service to the Illinois State Library. Since this time, Mary Jones has worked with the Life Center as State educational secretary, and remained active in the right to life cause. With her retirement, Mary Jones has much to be proud of. She is a charter member of the Springfield Right to Life, former IFRL treasurer, and co-founder of the Right to Life Education booth at the Illinois State Fair. As a mother of five, grandmother of nine, and great-grandmother of two, Mary Jones will remain active in her retirement traveling, spending time with family and friends, and tending to work around the house in Springfield, IL. As a fellow advocate for the right to life cause, I wish to extend my warmest wishes, and gratitude for the insightful impact Mary F. Jones has brought to the right to life cause.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant who recently completed 12 years of service, 8 of them as village president, to the people of Riverside, IL--Mr. Joseph H. DiNatale. Mr. DiNatale was elected to the village board in 1985, and became president four years later. His leadership helped guide Riverside, one of the crown jewels of suburban Chicago, through an important period of change as younger families moved into the community of rambling Victorian homes and sleek Frank Lloyd Wright-style designs. Most would agree that Riverside is as strong a community, if no more so, as when Mr. DiNatale was first elected village president. But Mr. DiNatale's service to his community did not begin as an elected official. He spent 7 years as an assistant Cook County State's attorney, prosecuting dangerous felons on behalf of his fellow citizens. For 22 years, Mr. DiNatale has served as governing member of the Chicago Zoological Society, which oversees the world famous Brookfield Zoo. He was also a member of both the parish council and school board of St. Mary's Church. As a distinguished attorney, Mr. DiNatale has served as a law instructor with various police departments and as a judge at the Northwestern Law School Moot Courts. He has also received numerous professional and civics awards and recognitions. His most recent honor was being named as the Riverside Chamber of Commerce's Man of the Year. However, perhaps his most important achievement has been personal and shared with his wife, Adele, in raising their six children: Joseph Jr., Katherine, Marc, Maria, Cara, and Michael. Mr. Speaker, I salute Mr. Joseph DiNatale on his years of dedicated community and public service, and extend my best wishes for all the best success for him and his family in the future.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on July 10, 1997, the Subcommittee on Aviation held a very emotional hearing regarding TWA Flight 800. Family members of the victims were there to tell the stories of their loved ones and how, 1 year later, they are still struggling with their loss. The family members' main objective that day was to bring to our attention the gross inadequacy that is created when the Death on the High Seas Act is applied to aviation accidents. As Chairman Duncan said, if a plane crashes into the ocean more than 3 miles from land, as did TWA Flight 800, the Death on the High Seas Act applies. This act denies families the ability to win noneconomic damages in a lawsuit. This means that a family member could not be compensated, for example, for the loss of companionship of a loved one; parents could not be compensated for the loss of their teenaged sons and daughters; sons and daughters could not be compensated for the loss of their elderly parents. However, if a plane crashed on land, State tort law or the Warsaw Convention would apply. Both permit the award of noneconomic damages. The effect of applying the Death on the High Seas Act to aviation accidents is a threat to families, definitely depending on whether their loved ones died in an air crash into the sea or one that crashed on land. This is obviously absurd and unfair. The value of an individual's life does not change depending on where the plane happens to come down. H.R. 2005, as amended, intends to correct this critical flaw of the Death on the High Seas Act. First, the bill simply adds the act to the list of shipping laws that do not apply to aviation. Second, the bill makes this change applicable to all cases still pending in the lower courts, which includes the family members of the victims of TWA Flight 800. I strongly urge all Members to support this bill. It is a simple piece of legislation that will fix the harmful inadequacies that result when the Death on the High Seas Act is applied to aviation disasters. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] for spearheading this bill through the subcommittee and the full committee, and I want to state once again, it is an honor and privilege to work with him. His cooperation is always outstanding. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' attention the devastating impact this Taxpayer Relief Act will have on one single industry--the aviation industry. It is impossible to balance the budget and give taxpayers billions in tax cuts at the same time without raising revenues. Therefore, through massive tax increases, the Ways and Means Committee has decided to use the airlines, and the airline consumer, as the primary source of revenue. Of the total $48 billion in tax increases over the next five years, $34 billion, or 70 percent, will be raised from the aviation industry. The airline passenger will now have to pay both a ticket tax and a new per flight segment head tax of $2.00, which will progressively increase each year, yet the passenger will not benefit from the increased revenues. This is because the revenue raised from increased aviation taxes will be used to accomplish other unrelated tax cuts in this package. There is absolutely no relationship between the additional taxes and the programs that these taxes are supposed to support. The additional taxes will not fund new safety and security measures; they will not fund air traffic control modernization efforts; and, they will not fund critical airport improvement projects. In fact, under the budget agreement, federal funding of air traffic control operations and airport development will likely decline over the next five years as these new taxes are increased. It is important to note that the increased revenues will be paid entirely by the airline passenger. It is the consumer who pays the ticket tax, the head tax, the departure and the arrival tax. However, the cargo waybill tax, which is paid by the profitable cargo airline industry, is simply extended in this tax package. Cargo companies, which fly hundreds of planes domestically and internationally each day at a profit, will not pay a cent more. Last year, when the aviation excise taxes lapsed, the airline industry and the Congress began to examine how to improve the way the Federal Aviation Administration is financed and how to provide a more reliable funding stream. As the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Aviation, I decided to take the lead in developing a fair and equitable ``user fee'' funding mechanism that would more closely align the funding of the FAA to the costs imposed on the system by the airlines. In addition, Congress created the National Civil Aviation Review Commission to study and recommend a new financing system. This Commission, which has a federal budget of $1.2 million, is composed of representatives of all segments of the aviation industry and is chaired by former Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Norm Mineta. However, a month before the Commission's expected recommendations, the Ways and Means Committee stepped in and raised aviation revenues without even waiting to hear what the $1.2 million taxpayer financed Commission has to say about aviation revenues and spending. Although I will continue to draft my user fee legislation, and the Commission will continue its important work, this aviation tax proposal will make it extremely difficult to make the necessary changes in the aviation financing system. By raising aviation taxes to offset other tax cuts, this proposal widens the existing gap between aviation revenues and spending in the budget process. In 1995 and 1996, the airline industry posted record profits. However, this success follows years of economic hardship when the airlines had to operate in the red, cutting service and eliminating jobs. If we take an additional $5 billion from the airlines over the next five years, as we propose to do today, we will completely eliminate their profit margin. We will kill the airlines that are already struggling today and will dash all others' hope for future growth. Aviation is an integral part of our economy. Economic stimulus from aviation-related activities is now estimated to be $700 billion dollars annually and is expected to grow to $900 billion by the end of the century. However, this tax package today will take the air out of the aviation industry. This massive tax increase will once again bring the dark skies of economic hardship over the aviation industry, effectively grounding it.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint Resolution 79, a resolution to disapprove most-favored-nation [MFN] treatment to the People's Republic of China. Our trade deficit with China in 1996 was $40 billion. By the end of 1997, the trade deficit is projected to be $53 billion, which averages out to the staggering sum of $1 billion a week. A large part of this is due to the fact that China charges American products with extremely high tariffs. For instance, China levies a 50 to 120 percent tariff on imported cars, a 50 percent tariff on imported athletic shoes, a 60 percent tariff on imported leather shoes, and a 40 percent tariff on imported toys. In all instances, United States tariffs on Chinese imports are substantially lower. China sells millions and millions of bikes in the United States, because we only levy a 11 percent tariff, while China charges us 50 percent. On average, the United States levies a tariff rate of 2 percent on Chinese goods. The Chinese have levies a 35 percent tariff rate on United States goods. We hear so much about free trade, but our trade relationship with China certainly isn't free, and it certainly isn't fair. It costs American jobs. It's just plain wrong for the American working men and women. We constantly hear from China and the administration that trade and foreign policy should be separate issues. They should not be linked. That is a very interesting argument coming from China considering they are one of the most skilled practitioners of such a policy. They reward friends and punish enemies with economic carrots and sticks in the form of huge government contracts. Moreover, the use of trade sanctions is not without precedent. It has been a vital component of U.S. foreign policy. We sanctioned the Soviet Union by the restriction of technology transfers, denial of MFN under the Jackson-Vanik amendment, and embargoes on Soviet purchases of American wheat. We maintain a trade embargo against Cuba. We deny MFN to North Korea and Afghanistan. We will soon impose sanctions on Burma. Why should we treat China and different? The answer is that we shouldn't. We should treat China a totalitarian regime in every sense, as we have treated totalitarian regimes in the past. We must not coddle them. We must not appease them. We must not assist them. Mr. Speaker, a vote for this resolution will be a vote for democracy it will be a vote for the ideals that founded this Republic. The ideals that make this Nation truly great. As the sole remaining superpower in the world, we must send a strong message to the totalitarian regime in Beijing that her actions will not be tolerated any longer. Enough is enough. I strongly urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 79.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of the resolution, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the House floor today in favor of this important constitutional amendment. When the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] asked me to replace Mr. Sonny Montgomery as the lead Democrat on the flag protection resolution, I was honored and eagerly accepted the role. However, it is important to note that this is not a Republican issue, nor is it a Democratic issue. It is an American issue. The flag is a symbol of our great Nation and all that we stand for. No other American symbol has been as universally honored or has bestowed such honor as our flag. We pledge allegiance to the flag at the start of each day here in the U.S. House of Representatives, as do schoolchildren throughout the United States. Our national anthem immortalizes the importance of our flag to our soldiers who fought for our freedom. Our flag is a symbol of our freedom. The flag, being the symbol of American freedoms and ideas, ought to be protected with the same vigor with which we protect the very freedoms and rights it represents. Our Nation's flag deserves respect, care, and protection. Willful desecration of the flag is an insult to all Americans, especially to those who fought to uphold the flag and maintain our freedom. This constitutional amendment to give to Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag in no way contradicts or weakens the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. There has always been some limitations on the freedom of speech. As mentioned earlier, prior to 1989, when States had flag protection statutes in effect, the American people did not complain that their freedom of speech was being unfairly restricted. In fact, in a recent poll, over 80 percent of Americans did not believe that the physical act of burning the flag was an appropriate expression of freedom of speech as guaranteed by the first amendment. In addition, flag desecration, such as burning, trampling, spitting, and defecating on the flag is not actual free speech but is expressive conduct. Expressive conduct is understandably afforded a lower level of constitutional protection than actual speech. This is an American issue, and the American people want the right to protect their flag. Forty-nine State legislatures, including my home State of Illinois, have passed memorializing resolutions asking Congress, asking us here in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Senate, for the opportunity to ratify a constitutional amendment protecting the flag. Two hundred eighty Members of Congress, from both parties, from all regions of the United States, have listened to their constituents and have cosponsored this important resolution. I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of House Joint Resolution 54. We must seize this opportunity to restore the American flag to its rightful place of honor and give the American people the right to protect their greatest symbol, the American flag. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. I say to the ranking member of the committee, I do not have any here right now, but I will be very happy to reach out and try to get them back here prior to the time we have a vote on this issue.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my two remaining minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some observations here. No. 1, House Joint Resolution 54 is the following: ``The Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' That means that when we pass this and the Senate passes it, we will have the ability to make a law to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag. I have heard a considerable amount of tyranny of the majority on this floor today. Yet in order to have this pass, we here in the House of Representatives, one of the two most democratic bodies in the entire world, have to produce 290 votes. The U.S. Senate has to produce 67 out of 100 votes. Then three-fourths of the States of the United States of America have to approve this. After all that is done, then we have the ability to write a law to protect the physical desecration of the flag. That seems to me to be the most democratic way we could possibly go about this. It cannot be tyranny of the majority when we have that many concerned, democratic individuals involved. On top of that, it seems to me that most of the arguments that we have heard today against this resolution have really been arguments against a law that would prohibit the physical desecration of the flag. That law has not been written. It will only be written after a long, concerted effort to pass this resolution. Once again, I say to my colleagues, support the flag, pass House Joint Resolution 54.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman joining me tonight.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, that seems to be the case. A lot of people are very uncomfortable talking about it. I am a capitalist. I believe in the free market system. But I also believe that an economy should be run for the benefit of the overwhelming majority of the members of that society, and that really should be the principle that guides us in all the legislation we put forth here, in the other body, in legislation that the President signs into law. Do what is best for the overwhelming majority of the American citizens economically and in every other way. It may sound very simplistic, and perhaps it really is. But that is the way the country should be governed; that is the way the legislation should come forward. Unfortunately, the longer I am here, the less and less I believe that is happening. So I would say to the gentleman, I would like the gentleman to conclude if you have any concluding remarks. I am finished for the evening. I hope to be back next Tuesday, but does the gentleman have anything to say in conclusion?

Mr. LIPINSKI. Absolutely.

Mr. LIPINSKI. And I am not asking the gentleman to support anyone here tonight.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, that certainly is a very interesting reflection. I will have to take that under consideration and I will certainly do that, and perhaps I will come to the same conclusion that the gentleman has come to. But I want to say that I admire the fact that the my colleague the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and the gentleman from Michigan Mr. Bonior] and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] and a number of other people come down here on Tuesday night and try to get this message out to the American people. I think it is a wonderful effort and I applaud my colleagues for it. I am very happy to participate with the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] tonight in that effort. But I have to say to the gentleman in all candor, we need to get a much bigger microphone. We have to have these conversations amplified significantly, I believe, in order to have any real impact on this Nation. I believe that we have to find ourselves a presidential candidate who is willing to articulate the issue about economic insecurity in this Nation, because I do not think there is any other way we can once again get this issue back to the front burner, make the American people aware of the fact that we know what their problem is. There are some people willing to jump into this battle and try to aid and assist them, but I think the only way we get them motivated, mobilized, is by having someone running for President in this Nation who is going to articulate that issue. I ask the gentleman his opinion on that.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Yes, I did.

Mr. LIPINSKI. From the news media.

Mr. LIPINSKI. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I want to say that we do not necessarily agree with everything that this man had to say, but for me one of the highlights of the last presidential election was when Pat Buchanan was running, and he was running on the issue of insecurity, the economic insecurity of the American middle class, the American working class. He spoke about it a great deal, he articulated it very well, and he forced President Clinton and Senator Dole to talk about it also. And I think they got wide dissemination; a lot of the media picked up on it. Unfortunately, when he went out of the race, President Clinton stopped talking about it, Senator Dole stopped talking about it, and the issue has just drifted away. And I say to you, you know, I do not understand why the issue drifted away. It is the most significant, important issue facing this Nation today. I said that when international communism ceased to exist, the Cold War was over and we were in an economic war. And by that, I meant a war to improve the standard of living of the American working and middle class, and to me, I believe we are losing that war, we are losing it more each and every day, each and every week, each and every month, and no one in this Nation, other than a very few voices, seem to have anything to say about it. What is your opinion on that?

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight deeply concerned, deeply concerned about our failed trade policies, deeply concerned about the plight of American workers, deeply concerned about the future of America. Four years ago in this Chamber we had a long, long debate on NAFTA. NAFTA proponents pushed hard for its passage. They promised that NAFTA would create 200,000 American jobs. They warned that NAFTA was critical to the American economy and that American jobs depended on its passage. After 40 months under NAFTA, we can clearly see that the reality is vastly different. The reality is that NAFTA worsened our trade balance with Mexico and Canada. Since NAFTA went into effect, our $10 billion deficit with Canada turned into a larger $23 billion deficit. Our $1.7 billion surplus with Mexico slid into a $16 billion deficit. Our growing trade deficits with Mexico and Canada mean that we are buying more than we are selling. It means that American jobs are being lost. The reality is that 90 percent of the companies that promised to create jobs have not. Allied Signal, General Electric, Johnson and Johnson, Mattel, Procter & Gamble, Zenith and Exxon. The list goes on and on and on. They promised NAFTA would create American jobs. In a sense, they signed a promissory note to all the working men and women of America. The note was a promise that working Americans would be better off with NAFTA. It is obvious today that these multinational corporations have defaulted on this promissory note. NAFTA is a complete and utter failure for working Americans. Four years ago, in 1993, we all heard the mantra of 200,000 jobs over and over again. Guess what? It is now 1997 and we have lost an estimated 400,000 jobs. This is a net loss. It is a staggering sum. Bear in mind that this is not just another number. There are real people behind the statistics, real people with real families and real problems. In their blind devotion to free trade, NAFTA proponents lost all contact with reality, and in so doing sacrificed 400,000 American jobs at the altar of free trade. Some folks want to expand NAFTA to Chile and other Latin American nations. I am absolutely shocked. Can they not see what they have already done? It is plain to see that NAFTA has failed. Yet these blind free trade advocates want to extend it to other nations. How many more American jobs do we have to lose before these people come to their senses? NAFTA is a broken trade agreement. It is an agreement that just does not work. If we continue to use this framework for future relationships with Chile and other Latin American countries, it will make a lousy situation even worse. The working men and women of America have suffered enough. Mr. Speaker, I am thinking today of the working men and women of America, men and women who are proud to give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, men and women who work hard to put food on the table and clothes on the backs of their children, men and women who struggle to make their mortgage payments, men and women who work longer hours for less. I am thinking today of the people who make up America. I am talking about Main Street, not Wall Street. I am talking about people who care about Medicare, Social Security, crime and education, not leveraged buyouts, not corporate takeovers, and not stock splits. I am talking about people who put in a full day's work, attend PTA meetings, go to church, work a second job, and still see their family incomes fall, while CEOs sit in their boardrooms and watch stock quotes with the knowledge that they will get their raises anyway. I grow tired of hearing empty promises, lofty oratory and abstract economic theory. I want to see results. I want to see the jobs they promised us. Instead, I see the 400,000 American jobs that were lost. Instead, I see a trade surplus slide into a huge trade deficit. Instead, I see broken promises. Unfortunately, for us the bottom line is that these huge multinational corporations focus only on the accountants' bottom line. To them American workers are an afterthought. I see a mentality where gold is God today, and that deeply concerns me. Mr. Speaker, when I graduated from high school in 1956, the world was a much different place. Thanks to the policies of FDR and the efforts of the organized labor movement, there was a burgeoning middle class in America. The New Deal especially brought a higher standard of living to American working men and women. Jobs were plentiful, workers were treated well and people were happy and optimistic about the future. The American dream was alive and well. Nowadays the average American worker changes jobs several times during the course of a lifetime. Jobs are scarce and people are insecure about the future. Pessimism and cynicism rule the day. Things have really changed in the last 4 decades. Where has the American dream gone? I understand that the world has evolved. It is a world economy now, and we cannot shy away from that. But we must make the world market our market. We must make it work for all Americans, not just the multinational corporations who care only about the bottom line. We must make it work for the plumber in Chicago, the fisherman in Maine, the assembly worker in Detroit and the taxicab driver in D.C. Let us rebuild the American dream for working men and women. Let us begin by establishing free and fair trade relationships with foreign nations and ensure they play by the same rules as we do, rules that cover labor, environmental and human rights issues that must be included in core trade agreements, not as an afterthought. We must treat these issues as importantly as businesses treat intellectual property rights and rule of law. We must level the playing field and get away from the ``gold is God'' mentality that some folks cling to so fervently. Let us put people before profit. What happens to the American middle class happens to America. Let us do all we can to make sure that the working men and women of this country can live out the American dream. As I mentioned earlier, there are proposals now to expand NAFTA to other countries, such as Chile. To do that, they will need Congress to grant the administration the authority to negotiate trade agreements and submit them to Congress under expedited procedures for an up-or- down vote. Article 1, section 8 of our Constitution vests Congress with an extremely important responsibility, and that is the responsibility to regulate commerce with foreign nations. It is our responsibility to the American people as well as to the people of the world to enter into fair, responsible trade agreements that respect labor, the environment and human rights. Proponents of free trade argue that placing such restrictions on trade is counterproductive. The rallying cry of laissez faire economists may be tempting to the ignorant and the blind, but not to those who remember and understand our history. Let us not forget the numerous social upheavals, economic crashes and depressions that the U.S. has experienced. Let us not forget the lessons learned through those times that government regulation has played a vital and necessary role in the free market. Do we so quickly forget that it was because of government intervention that the social abuses of the late 19th and early 20th century were ended, child labor, sweatshops, substarvation labor wages, widespread pollution and atrocious working conditions? Thanks to the government and labor unions, we were able to stamp these abuses out. Some folks have been misled into thinking that government regulations must be bad. History is supposed to provide us with valuable lessons. How quickly some forget. Mr. Speaker, NAFTA is a failure. It failed because it put profits before people, multinational corporations before families. It failed because NAFTA does not adequately address industrial relations, the right to strike, the right to organize and the right to freely associate. It is clear that Mexican workers do not enjoy the same level of labor rights as we do here in America. To make a bad situation worse, their wages are essentially capped under an agreement known as el pacto, and a large number of owners also privately set minimum and maximum wages so that they do not compete for workers on this basis. All of these factors combine to create a downward pressure on wages in Mexico. Since NAFTA began, the wages and living conditions of Mexican workers have not improved. In fact, the exact opposite has occurred. They have declined. The percentage of Mexicans considered extremely poor rose from 31 percent in 1993 to 50 percent in 1996. Real manufacturing wages have declined 25 percent since NAFTA went into effect. Environmental conditions have deteriorated. Instead of moving into the 21st century, they are sliding back to the dark ages. The unfortunate end result of all this is that Mexican workers are viewed simply as a source of cheap labor by multinational corporations, which creates a serious problem for us in America. With a large pool of cheap labor a short distance away, multinational corporations have a great deal of freedom and incentive to move manufacturing facilities to Mexico, and fewer environmental regulations there means even more money saved. Moving production to Mexico results in low overhead which means higher profits for corporations. Here is a case in point. During the NAFTA debate in 1993, Zenith Electronics Corp. denied the report that they would transfer all of their production facilities to Mexico as a result of NAFTA. On the contrary, Zenith said NAFTA offers the prospect of more jobs at the company's Melrose Park, IL facility. Needless to say, Zenith announced late last year that it was laying off 800 of its 3,000 workers at the Melrose Park facility. Not only are companies moving their facilities to Mexico, leaving hundreds of thousands of hard-working Americans in their wake, it is now commonplace for them to use it as a threat. They use it as a scare tactic in order to undermine the efforts of workers to improve their wages, benefits and working conditions through collective bargaining. A recent Cornell University study found that a significant number of companies threatened to move work to Mexico as part of their efforts to intimidate workers who want to unionize. I find it morally reprehensible to resort to such tactics. It undermines the legal right of American workers who want to form unions. It undermines the basic right of American workers who want to provide a better living for themselves and their families. Proponents of NAFTA touted it as a win, win, win situation. It sure has been a win, win, win situation. It is a win for big business in Mexico, it is a win for big business in America, it is a win for big business in Canada. It is the working families who lose. Mr. Speaker, this is an important and complex issue. As the world economy becomes increasingly interwoven and trade continues to grow as an important part of our national economy, we must ensure that we enter into trade agreements that are fair and equitable to the American worker. We must evaluate trade relationships from this perspective. As such, we have got to take a long hard look at NAFTA and what it has done to the working men and women of America. We must think about granting fast track authority to the administration and what it will mean for the American middle class. We should closely examine the arguments for the expansion of NAFTA to Chile and other Latin American nations. As the gentleman from Michigan, David Bonior, noted, there are more people in this Congress who voted against NAFTA 4 years ago than voted for it, and many of those who voted for it say they would never vote for it again. The evidence against NAFTA is growing, and it is becoming just too hard for folks to ignore. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] who is going to engage me in a colloquy about NAFTA trade and numerous other issues that affect the American working man and woman. Mr. Sanders.