Angie Craig: “I don't know how anyone serving the Senate, which is for an expanding economy, for greater revenues, for workers and for…”

“I don't know how anyone serving the Senate, which is for an expanding economy, for greater revenues, for workers and for producers--and of course we will tax a little of that--would be against trade. Clearly, the future of our economy is trading in a world market. I have watched my State of Idaho grow from an agrarian economy of agriculture, timber and mining, to a very diverse economy today of electronics, the high-tech industry, and food processing. Almost half of everything an Idaho worker produces has to sell on the world market to be profitable, to allow that person his or her job and to continue the success of that company. That is also true in Minnesota. It is also true everywhere else in the country. What the Senator is saying and what I am saying is, in the case of Canada and softwood lumber--and they have a distinct advantage and dump in our markets, putting our people out of work--we say, wait a minute, stop; balance this field out a little bit and create fair trade by that kind of balance. That is what our amendment allows--a balancing of the process. What is most important that our amendment allows us, as policymakers, is a right to have a voice in that process. Not the take-it-or-leave-it strategy that doesn't work in the end. I wanted to vote for NAFTA. I voted against NAFTA. Why? Extraneous environmental, extraneous labor agreements that should not have been part of a trade agreement. It had no choice. There was no flexibility. Take it or leave it.”