[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 13, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2576-H2584]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              NAFTA UPDATE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 7, 1997, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be the first speaker this 
evening in a special order devoted to the North American Free Trade 
Agreement, NAFTA. Tonight we are going to talk about, since the 
agreement was signed and passed over the objections of many, many of us 
here in the House, passed in January 1994, what have been the 
repercussions in our country and what have been the repercussions in 
the other two nations on the continent, Canada and Mexico, that are 
participating in this agreement with us?
  This past week we saw our President travel to Mexico and to other 
nations of Latin America to promote additional nations being added to 
the NAFTA accord. And the question many of us have in the Congress 
today is, based on the results of the existing NAFTA, the flaws 
inherent in that agreement, why would anyone want to

[[Page H2577]]

expand NAFTA rather than fixing the agreement we have now?
  Since NAFTA's passage, the United States has not exported more than 
it has imported from either Mexico or Canada. In fact, we have now 
racked up trade deficits annually with Mexico totaling $16 to $18 
billion a year, and with Canada $20 billion a year. If each billion 
dollars translates into lost jobs in this country and we have racked up 
on average $40 billion in trade deficit every year since NAFTA's 
passage, how can the overall agreement be working to the advantage of 
our Nation and its workers?

                              {time}  1945

  If we think about it, with our economy on the rebound and holding its 
own, without NAFTA we would be growing even faster. Because, in fact, 
NAFTA acts not as a net positive but as a net negative in terms of job 
creation and wealth creation in the United States of America.
  Tonight we want to talk a little bit about what is happening inside 
this agreement and the people across our country who are literally the 
casualties of NAFTA that are never talked about in the press, that are 
not heard from, but they number in the thousands in our country, and in 
Mexico they number in the millions.
  But if we look at who the President talked to last week in Mexico, 
the audiences were self-selected. He was cordoned off. People were 
bussed into events. They were told when to cheer, even told when to 
wave flags.
  But the real people of Mexico, the peasants who have been uprooted 
from their subsistence farms, the 28,000 businesses in that country 
that have gone belly up, the people whose wages have been cut by 70 
percent, the President really did not hold state level meetings with 
them. Yet they live on this continent, too. And it is really tragic.
  But in a way I am beginning to see a pattern here, because the 
President and the supporters of NAFTA will not meet with the casualties 
in our country either. And tonight I want to tell my friends about one 
casualty, but there are thousands. In fact, the Federal Government's 
Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for dislocated workers has already 
certified over 125,000 Americans who have managed to even find that 
this program exists. There are thousands and thousands more across our 
country who do not even know if they lose their job because the 
production has moved to Mexico or Canada, we will try to help them.
  But I want to tell my colleagues about one of their stories, because 
it is very troubling to me that American citizens who have been hard-
working, who have paid their taxes and then get hurt because of an 
action of their government, become nonentities. They become faceless 
people.
  They remind me of the Vietnam war, when people were being killed in 
the countryside and the body bags came home and they tried to hide them 
in the hangars at the various bases around our Nation until it began to 
be reported on the evening news. Well, my friends there are NAFTA 
casualties and nobody wants to talk about it. But we are going to talk 
about it tonight.
  One of the casualties is a woman that I have had the pleasure of only 
talking with on the telephone and corresponding with in the mail, and I 
want to use her as my example and I want to tell my colleagues her 
story because it is repeated from coast to coast. Her name is Wanda 
Napier. She is a resident of the State of Missouri. She lives in 
Marshfield, and I want to read into the Record a letter that she 
recently wrote me.
  She wrote me after she became frustrated, and I will read those 
letters tonight, too, in writing to the President of our country, to 
her Senators, to her representatives at the State level in Missouri, to 
her Governor, to the Department of Labor. And to see the answers that 
this woman got from the Government officials of her State and our 
Nation is truly an embarrassment.
  Here is what she writes me:
  Dear Marcie: I am writing concerning the closure of my apparel plant 
in Seymour, MO. I called you with my concerns in January on the North 
American Free-Trade Agreement and its cost of American jobs like mine. 
This trade agreement has made it easier and more profitable for 
companies such as the Lee Apparel Co. to take American jobs to other 
countries like Mexico. It is my understanding that representatives want 
to extend that agreement to cover other countries as well. But let me 
tell you my story.
  The Lee Apparel Co., a subsidiary of Vanity Fair Corp., was one of 
the two main employers in Seymour, MO. The employees were hard working 
people who had helped the Lee Co. through many hard times. In 1988, we 
accepted the Lee COMPETE plan which gave us an immediate cut in pay and 
tightened our incentive rates and made it harder to make a decent 
living. We took this cut to help make the jobs in Seymour more secure.
  But we found out 8 years later on September 26, 1996, that our hard 
work and willingness to help the Lee Co. would be thrown back into our 
faces by the Lee Co. sending our jobs to Mexico and Costa Rica. By 
sending our jobs to Mexico, the Vanity Fair Corp., through low wages 
and corporate greed, have not even allowed the Mexican people to make a 
living.
  With one stroke the Vanity Fair Corp., has weakened the American 
economy and depressed the Mexican people. I know that the people who 
worked in the Seymour, MO, plant deserve better. Many of the employees 
had devoted 5, 10, 20, even 25 or more years to the Lee Co., and this 
was their reward. We certainly were not making extremely high wages. 
The average for the last quarter we worked was only $7.84 per hour.
  A total of almost 2,000 American jobs have been lost just since 
December of 1995--she says 2,000 jobs just in this one company, in the 
Lee Apparel Co.--including the closing of the St. Joseph, MO, plant; 
Fayetteville, TN; Seymour, MO; Dalton, GA; Bayou La Batre, AL; and the 
downsizing of jobs in the Winston-Salem, NC, plant. The other plants 
now working are in danger of losing their jobs to foreign countries and 
live in constant threat of plant closure. When will it stop?
  I believe that the Government representatives of this country have 
allowed this to happen by passing the trade agreements such as NAFTA 
and GATT. Even though most will tell me that these trade agreements 
will be better in the long run, it does not help the 2,000 American 
workers who lost their jobs this year from the Lee Apparel Co., who 
need to support and feed their families.
  I believe that when we combine the unconcern of the Government 
representatives of this country with the greed and coldness of the 
American corporations such as the Vanity Fair Corp., we will continue 
to have lost jobs and an increase of American work given to foreign 
governments.
  The tax dollars generated in the city of Seymour, in Webster County, 
in the State of Missouri, and the United States, will be lost and 
services to those communities decreased due to lack of funds because of 
this closure. The same will be true in other communities that contained 
Lee apparel plants that were closed and the ones that will be closed in 
the future due to American work being sent out of the United States.
  In a news bulletin dated October 18, 1995, the Vanity Fair Corp. 
stated, ``Clearly, though, Vanity Fair remains committed to a strong 
domestic manufacturing capability that provides quick response to our 
retail partners, flexibility to changing product trends and support to 
the local communities in which we operate.''
  She says, I guess somewhere along the line the Vanity Fair Corp. 
forgot the American community and the American people to whom they sell 
their product.

  Through the closing of these domestic plants, many American 
communities will suffer. Not only the employees of the closed Lee 
Apparel plants but also the businesses who rely on the money generated 
through wages spent. They will suffer too. That is some commitment on 
behalf of the Vanity Fair Corp.
  We were told that if your plant must be closed, this is the best way 
because of the provision for job training provided by the NAFTA 
agreement. But in the case of Missouri, this is not proving to be the 
case. The employees of Seymour are having to fight to get the training 
entitlement under this plan. Many are having to fight many battles with 
the Employment Security Office that approves this training to get the

[[Page H2578]]

high-technology training that is supposed to lessen the chance of our 
future jobs being given to foreign governments. Not only have we lost 
our jobs, but we now must fight our own Government to get good 
training.
  I don't know, but doesn't it seem like there should be a better way 
of doing things? When will the American Government start requiring 
accountability for these trade agreements? When will the American 
people that they represent start requiring accountability for the bills 
passed by our Government?
  I hope you will read this letter to your fellow Representatives on 
the floor of Congress. Somewhere the system has gone against the 
American people and we need help. Thank you for your time and concern, 
I appreciate all you have contributed to the American worker.
  Now I want to put Wanda's letter in the Record:

                                                 January 12, 1997.
     Congresswoman Marcie Kaptur,
     State of Ohio, Rayburn Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Kaptur: I am writing concerning the 
     closure of my apparel plant in Seymour, Missouri. I called 
     your radio program on 1-12-97 with my concerns on the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement and its cost of American jobs 
     like mine. This Trade agreement has made it easier and more 
     profitable for companies such as the Lee Apparel Company to 
     take American jobs to other countries like Mexico. It is my 
     understanding that representatives want to extend that 
     agreement to cover other countries as well. This is my story:
       The Lee Apparel Company, a subsidiary of the Vanity Fair 
     Corporation, was one of the two main employers in Seymour, 
     Missouri. The employees were hard working people who had 
     helped the Lee Company through many hard times. In 1988, we 
     accepted the Lee COMPETE plan which gave us an immediate cut 
     in pay and tightened our incentive rates and made it harder 
     to make a decent living. We took this cut to help make the 
     jobs in Seymour more secure.
       We found out on September 26, 1996 that our hard work and 
     willingness to help the Lee Company would be thrown back into 
     our faces by the Lee Company sending our jobs to Mexico and 
     Costa Rica. By sending our jobs to Mexico, the Vanity Fair 
     Corporation, through low wages and corporate greed have not 
     even allowed the Mexican people to make a living. With one 
     stroke, the Vanity Fair Corporation has weakened the American 
     economy and depressed the Mexican people. I know that the 
     people who worked in the Seymour, Missouri plant deserve 
     better. Many of the employees had devoted 5, 10, 20, and even 
     25 or more years to the Lee Company and this was their 
     reward. We certainly were not making extremely high wages. 
     The average for the last quarter we worked was only $7.84 per 
     hour.
       A total of almost 2000 American jobs have been lost just 
     since December of 1995 in the Lee Apparel Company, including 
     the closing of the St. Joseph, Missouri; Fayetteville, TN.; 
     Seymour, Missouri; Dalton, GA.; Bayou La Batre, Al.; and the 
     down-sizing of jobs in the Winston-Salem, N.C. plant. The 
     other plants now working are in danger of losing their jobs 
     to foreign countries and live in constant threat of plant 
     closure. When will it stop?
       I believe that the government representatives of this 
     country have allowed this to happen by passing the trade 
     agreements such as NAFTA and GATT. Even though most will tell 
     me that these trade agreements will be better in the long 
     run, it does not help the 2000 American workers who lost 
     their jobs this year from the Lee Apparel Company support 
     and feed their families. I believe that when we combine 
     the unconcern of the government representatives of this 
     country with the greed and coldness of American 
     corporations such as the Vanity Fair Corporation, we will 
     continue to have lost jobs and an increase of American 
     work given to foreign governments. The tax dollars 
     generated in the city of Seymour, Webster County, the 
     State of Missouri, and the United States will be lost and 
     services to the communities decreased due to lack of funds 
     because of this closure. The same will be true in the 
     other communities that contained Lee Apparel plants that 
     were closed and the ones that will be closed in the future 
     due to American work being sent out of the United States.
       In a news bulletin dated October 18, 1995, the Vanity Fair 
     Corporation stated, ``Clearly, though, VF remains committed 
     to a strong domestic manufacturing capability that provides 
     quick response to our retail partners, flexibility to 
     changing product trends and support to the local communities 
     in which we operate.'' I guess somewhere along the line, the 
     VF Corporation forgot the American community and the American 
     people to whom they sell their product. Through the closing 
     of these domestic plants, many American communities will 
     suffer. Not only the employees of the closed Lee Apparel 
     plants, but also the businesses who rely on the money 
     generated through wages spent will suffer. That is some 
     commitment on the behalf of the Vanity Fair Corporation!
       We were told that if your plant must be closed, this is the 
     best way because of the provision for job training provided 
     by the NAFTA agreement. In the case of Missouri, this is not 
     proving to be the case. The employees of Seymour are having 
     to fight to get the training entitlement under this plan. 
     Many are having to fight many battles with the Employment 
     Security office that approves this training to get the high-
     tech training that is supposed to lessen the chance of our 
     future jobs being given to foreign governments. Not only have 
     we lost our jobs, but now we must fight our own government to 
     get good training.
       I don't know, but doesn't it seem like there should be a 
     better way of doing things? When will the American government 
     start requiring accountability for these trade agreements? 
     When will the American people that they represent start 
     requiring accountability for the bills passed by our 
     government?
       I hope you will read this letter to your fellow 
     representatives on the floor. Somewhere the system has gone 
     against the American people and we need help! Thank you for 
     your time and concern. I appreciate all you have contributed 
     to the American worker.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                  Wanda J. Rapier.

  But what is very interesting is she sent a similar letter to the 
President of the United States. I am going to read his answer and put 
that in the Record this evening as well, because it is an answer that 
goes to the hundreds of thousands of people in our country who have 
lost their jobs to NAFTA as well as to the people in Mexico who are 
getting the short end of the stick.
  This is what he said to Wanda, the President of the United States, in 
a letter dated January of this year.

       Dear Wanda: Thank you for sharing your views about the 
     North American Free Trade Agreement. America's continued 
     prosperity depends, as never before, on our ability to tap 
     growing markets around the world.
       NAFTA represents a great opportunity to create new, high-
     wage jobs here in America and to improve our ability to 
     compete with Asia and Europe. And, as a result of this 
     agreement, the Mexican and Canadian markets are beginning to 
     open for the first time on a fair and equal basis to U.S. 
     goods and services. More than 2 million American jobs are 
     supported by exports to Canada and Mexico, and that number is 
     growing in large part due to the NAFTA market-opening 
     provisions.
       Congress passed NAFTA in a historic demonstration of 
     bipartisan support, and our country has chosen to compete, 
     not retreat, and to reassert our leadership in the global 
     economy. I hope you will continue to stay involved as we work 
     to move our country forward.
       Sincerely, Bill Clinton, President of the United States.

                                              The White House,

                                     Washington, January 14, 1997.
     Ms. Wanda J. Napier,
     Marshfield, MO.
       Dear Wanda: Thank you for sharing your views about the 
     North American Free Trade Agreement. America's continued 
     prosperity depends, as never before, on our ability to tap 
     growing markets around the world.
       NAFTA represents a great opportunity to create new, high-
     wage jobs here in America and to improve our ability to 
     compete with Asia and Europe. And, as a result of this 
     agreement, the Mexican and Canadian markets are beginning to 
     open for the first time on a fair and equal basis to U.S. 
     goods and services. More than two million American jobs are 
     supported by exports to Canada and Mexico, and that number is 
     growing in large part due to the NAFTA market-opening 
     provisions.
       Congress passed NAFTA in a historic demonstration of 
     bipartisan support, and our country has chosen to compete--
     not retreat--and to reassert our leadership in the global 
     economy. I hope you will continue to stay involved as we work 
     to move our country forward.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Now, Wanda also wrote her Senators, and I am going to read the answer 
that she got, and we wonder why the American people stop voting, 
because nobody is listening. And here is what one of the Senators said, 
and I will place this in the Record:

       Dear Ms. Napier: Thank you very much for sharing your 
     thoughts. I am always happy to hear from Missourians and am 
     interested to know your thoughts on this issue.
       Again, thank you for taking the time to inform me of your 
     views. If I can be of further assistance, please do not 
     hesitate to contact me.

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, October 16, 1996.
     Ms. Wanda J. Napier,
     Route 4, Box 3810, Marshfield, MO
       Dear Ms. Napier: Thank you very much for sharing your 
     thoughts on supporting the NAFTA Accountability Act. I am 
     always happy to hear from Missourians and am interested to 
     know your thoughts on this issue.
       Again, thank you for taking the time to inform me of your 
     views. If I can be of further assistance, please do not 
     hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                              Christopher S. Bond,
                                                     U.S. Senator.


[[Page H2579]]


  Then she wrote a senator in her home State, and I will not read the 
entire letter here this evening, but I will read a portion of it and 
place the entire letter of reply in the Record. The gentleman, who is a 
senator in Jefferson City, says to Wanda:

       The question was posed as to how we were allowing this to 
     happen. I do not know that anyone was allowing this to 
     happen. Competition in the sewing industry has been very 
     intense for several years, and now that we have a Mexican 
     labor market so open to us, there is even greater pressure 
     from competition.

                                              Missouri Senate,

                                 Jefferson City, October 16, 1996.
     Ms. Wanda Napier,
     Marshfield, MO.
       Dear Ms. Napier: I have received four letters which were 
     identical so, therefore, I am taking the liberty of sending 
     each of you the same letter.
       I am very sorry that the Lee Company found it necessary to 
     close the Seymour plant and I know it will be a burden and 
     hardship on 350 individuals as well as their families. The 
     economic impact on the county is also obvious.
       The Department of Economic Development has assured me that 
     they will do all they can do to see that a new employer is 
     able to move into the Seymour community at the earliest date 
     possible.
       The question was posed as to how we were allowing this to 
     happen. I don't know that anyone was allowing this to happen. 
     Competition in the sewing industry has been very intense for 
     several years and now that we have a Mexican labor market so 
     open to us there is even greater pressure from competition.
       I doubt that any one of us wants to live in a state or 
     nation that would nationalize businesses (take the companies 
     over).
       You may wish to correspond directly with Congressman 
     Skelton and Senators Bond and Ashcroft. Their addresses are 
     enclosed.
       Be assured of my interest and willingness to help in any 
     way I can. I do believe that there will be job opportunities 
     for the work force in the Seymour area. The availability of 
     the plant facilities and trained work force has to be a real 
     asset for the city of Seymour to offer a prospective company.
       I know it is a difficult time but by working together there 
     will be a brighter day.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John T. Russell.

  At least he was honest. At least he was honest, and what he is really 
saying is that here in the United States what we are doing is, we are 
in a race to the bottom. Lowering our standards continually, wages not 
rising, benefits being cut, whether it is in health, whether it is in 
retirement, workplace standards deteriorating because we do not have 
proper rules of engagement with nations that are not at our level and 
standard of living.
  Now, she also wrote the Secretary of Labor of the United States of 
America. I am going to place that response in the Record, as well, 
because essentially what they say to her is that the President and the 
Secretary of Labor have been raising the issue of corporate 
responsibility, and they are telling her that while change is 
inevitable, profit should not be the only factor considered when 
companies reorganize, merge, or downsize.
  And, in fact, the Secretary of Labor informs her that the President 
of the United States recently hosted the White House Conference on 
Corporate Citizenship, gee, would that not make her feel good, to 
continue the national discussion, discussion of how the corporate 
sector can ensure growth and profitability while not denying people the 
opportunity to make the most of their lives.
  They go on to say that more than 300 business leaders came to the 
White House, including a sizable number of those businesses that are 
leaders in one or more of the five critical aspects of corporate 
responsibility. And listen to what the White House thinks are the 
elements of corporate responsibility: family-friendly work practices, 
health care and retirement, safe and secure workplaces, education and 
training, and employer-employee partnerships.
  But where is jobs in America? Where is the issue of holding these 
corporations responsible for productive, high-wage jobs in the United 
States of America? Not even discussed.

         U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant 
           Secretary for Policy,
                                 Washington, DC, October 28, 1996.
     Ms. Wanda Napier,
     Marshfield, MO.
       Dear Ms. Napier: Thank you for writing. The Secretary of 
     Labor has asked me to respond on his behalf.
       The President and the Secretary are committed to doing all 
     they can to assist workers, such as those at the Lee Company 
     plants cited in your letters, who have lost or are in danger 
     of losing their positions as a result of downsizing. The 
     Administration is fighting to ensure that adequate funding is 
     provided for training programs for dislocated workers, to 
     help them land on their feet.
       The President and the Secretary are also raising the issue 
     of corporate responsibility. While change is inevitable, 
     profits should not be the only factor considered when 
     companies reorganize, merge, or downsize. Corporate decisions 
     and actions must accommodate the interests of employees as 
     well.
       The President recently hosted the White House Conference on 
     Corporate Citizenship to continue the national discussion of 
     how the corporate sector can ensure growth and profitability 
     while not denying people the opportunity to make the most of 
     their lives. More than 300 business leaders attended the 
     Conference, including a sizeable number of those businesses 
     that are leaders in one or more of five critical aspects of 
     corporate responsibility: family-friendly work practices, 
     health care and retirement, safe and secure workplaces, 
     education and training, and employer-employee partnerships.
       Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns on these 
     important economic issues with the Administration.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Emil Parker,
                     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy.

  It was interesting, she wrote her Governor. I will not read the 
answer from the Governor of Missouri, but basically it is a letter 
saying, I want to hear the concerns of citizens and be of assistance, 
but because your problem of losing your job falls under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, he is 
bucking the letter to the Department of Industrial Relations, which 
basically tells her that they have a listing of computerized building 
and site information that they make available to potential companies 
that want to locate in Missouri.

                                           Office of the Governor,


                                            State of Missouri,

                                Jefferson City, November 26, 1996.
     Ms. Wanda Napier,
     Marshfield, MO.
       Dear Ms. Napier: Thank you for your letter. I want to hear 
     the concerns of citizens and to be of assistance when 
     possible.
       Because the matter addressed in your letter falls under the 
     jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Industrial 
     Relations, I have forwarded your letter to the department 
     director's office for review and response. You should receive 
     a reply in the near future. If you do not, please let me 
     know.
           Very truly yours,
                                                     Mel Carnahan.

                              {time}  2000

  I can tell my colleagues I spoke to Wanda on Sunday again. She has no 
job. Her fellow employees, if they have been able to scrape anything 
together in that part of the country, are earning half of what they 
used to earn, and they only earned about $7.85 an hour anyway.
  This is what one citizen has tried to do to get anybody to listen to 
her story. This is someone who could be completely down and out, but 
she refuses to back down because she wants an answer. So what is she 
doing? She has rewritten the President of the United States another 
letter. She said, ``Mr. President, I do not think you read my letter 
because the answer I got could not have been to the letter that was 
addressed to you.''
  She wrote that letter a few months ago and she finally got an answer 
dated May 5, again from the White House, exactly the same letter, word 
for word, except for the date, that she received in the first place. I 
am going to place that letter in the Record as well at this point.

                                                  The White House,
     Washington, May 5, 1997.
     Mrs. Wanda J. Napier,
     Marshfield, MO.
       Dear Wanda: Thank you for sharing your views about the 
     North American Free Trade Agreement. America's continued 
     prosperity depends, as never before, on our ability to tap 
     growing markets around the world.
       NAFTA represents a great opportunity to create new, high-
     wage jobs here in America and to improve our ability to 
     compete with Asia and Europe. And, as a result of this 
     agreement, the Mexican and Canadian markets are beginning to 
     open for the first time on a fair and equal basis to U.S. 
     goods and services. More than two million American jobs are 
     supported by exports to Canada and Mexico, and that number is 
     growing in large part due to the NAFTA market-opening 
     provisions.
       Congress passed NAFTA in a historic demonstration of 
     bipartisan support, and our country has chosen to compete--
     not retreat--and to reassert our leadership in the global 
     economy. I hope you will continue to stay involved as we work 
     to move our country forward.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.


[[Page H2580]]


  She has been e-mailing the White House. This is a woman who will not 
give up. I give her so much credit. She has been e-mailing the White 
House almost every other day. It is interesting when she writes the e-
mail to explain her problem, whoever is down in that office in the e-
mail office, here is what they answer her:

       Thank you for writing to President Clinton via electronic 
     mail. Since June 19, 1993, the White House has received over 
     1 million e-mail messages from people across the country and 
     around the world. We are excited about the progress of online 
     communication as a tool to bring government and the people 
     closer together. Your continued interest and participation 
     are very important to that goal. Sincerely, Stephen Horn, 
     Director, Presidential E-mail, the Office of Correspondence.

  If you were Wanda sitting out there in Missouri, how would you feel? 
I promised her that I am going to keep repeating her story until she 
gets a decent answer from the highest officeholder in this land who is 
elected, not appointed, and who is the promoter, the chief promoter of 
this agreement, along with the Speaker of this institution. It seems to 
me that Wanda and the 125,000 citizens of this country who have 
completely lost their jobs, in California, in Missouri, in Florida, in 
Michigan, in Tennessee, in Kentucky, in Alabama, in Texas due to NAFTA, 
do they not have a right to more consideration than this?
  Today in Ohio we had major news. In the Warren, OH area, 8,500 
workers at a major General Motors plant have gone on strike. What are 
they striking about? Let me read from the AP wire service. They walked 
off the job at General Motors Corp. where they make electric wiring for 
20 automakers worldwide. The walkout began at 12 o'clock today, the 
deadline set by their union representatives to reach a contract 
agreement on local pension and pay issues with Delphi-Packard systems. 
Talks broke off on the issue of job security. Specifically, the union's 
contention is that the company in recent years has shifted thousands of 
jobs to Mexico, which it has. It employs over 37,000 people in Mexico 
today. General Motors is the largest employer in the nation of Mexico 
after the Government of Mexico.

       The company wanted to reserve the right to move any work 
     out of Ohio to Mexico at any time and that they did not have 
     to meet with us about it, and that's when the bargaining 
     committee said we can't live with that.
       The concern is for our members working here to be able to 
     retire from here.

  Their story, their strike is connected to Wanda. It is over the same 
issue: fair treatment of workers across this continent. It is very 
interesting that when Mexico got in trouble last year and they had to 
be bailed out with the peso bailout, the investors on Wall Street and 
the investors on the Mexico City stock exchange had such important 
seats at the table that our own Government became the insurance company 
for Mexico and our taxpayer dollars, through the U.S. Treasury, were 
used to prop Mexico up. But when the American people lose their jobs to 
another nation, or they are threatened with losing their shirts, they 
have no seat at the table. There is no place under NAFTA where the 
workers of our country, and, for that matter, the workers of Mexico and 
the farmers of both nations, where they get a break, where they get 
anybody to pay attention to their story. Do my colleagues think the 
Secretary of the Treasury even would sit down with Wanda? I would love 
to see that. The President of the United States will not even answer 
her repeated letters and repeated e-mails.
  So here tonight we give voice to her, we give voice to the 8,500 
General Motors workers in Warren, OH, who are standing firm. Their 
fight is a fight for every working family in America, because they are 
saying, we do not want our jobs outsourced. We do not want to have our 
wages reduced and our benefits cut and our health benefits plan gutted 
because we have to go in competition with a nation that will not even 
permit its own citizens to have their wages rise with rising 
productivity.
  Let me mention that this Warren-based company of General Motors has 
17 manufacturing plants and an engineering center in the Warren-
Youngstown region in northeast Ohio, and they make wiring harnesses. 
Half their production goes into GM vehicles. As with Wanda's company, 
Vanity Fair, which had branches all over the United States, Delphi 
Packard has factories in Alabama, Arizona, California, and Mississippi. 
The workers who are standing the ground in Ohio tonight are standing in 
firm solidarity with workers across this Nation and, in fact, across 
this continent.
  The striking workers have set up picket lines in Ohio. Production was 
stopped and no new talks were scheduled. One of the company spokesmen 
said today, ``One real key point for us is that Delphi Packard has 
worked long and hard to build a diverse customer base, a lot of non-GM 
customers. The difficulty of winning and growing non-GM business is so 
challenging that when you interrupt that supply line, the risk is you 
can damage that relationship.''
  Union members have complained about retirement incentives for older 
workers and wages and benefits for newer employees who make up 55 
percent of the most senior hourly workers.
  What they are really fighting about are standard of living questions, 
living wage questions, questions of whether their contract, given their 
work, deserves a fair day's pay. With whom are they competing? People 
who do not have the ability to raise their standard of living in a 
nation like Mexico.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to place this story about what is happening 
in Ohio in the Record this evening at this point.

       8,500 Delphi Workers Strike in Warren, Cite Mexico Threat

       Warren, OH (AP).--A key auto industry supplier was struck 
     today by 8,500 hourly workers who walked off the job at a 
     General Motors Corp. subsidiary that makes electric wiring 
     for 20 automakers worldwide.
       The walkout began at 12:01 a.m., the deadline set by the 
     International Union of Electronic Workers to reach a contract 
     agreement on local pension and pay issues with Delphi Packard 
     Electric Systems.
       Talks broke off over the issue of job security, 
     specifically the union's contention that the company in 
     recent years has shifted thousands of jobs to Mexico, Mike 
     Kowach, Local 717 vice president, said today.
       ``The company wanted to reserve the right to move any work 
     out of Ohio to Mexico at any time and that they did not have 
     to meet with us about it, and that's when the bargaining 
     committee said we can't live with that.
       ``The concern is for our members working here to be able to 
     retire from here,'' Kowach said.
       A message seeking the company's response on that issue was 
     not immediately returned.
       Most pay and benefit issues were settled earlier in a 
     national agreement between GM and the union. The contract 
     governing local issues expired in September.
       The Warren-based company has 17 manufacturing plants and an 
     engineering center in the Warren-Youngstown region in 
     northeast Ohio, and makes wiring harnesses. Half of its 
     production goes into GM vehicles.
       Delphi Packard also has factories in Alabama, Arizona, 
     California and Mississippi that are not involved in the 
     strike.
       Both sides have been negotiating on local issues since mid-
     1996.
       The striking workers set up picket lines, but other 
     employees reported to their jobs, leading to some minor 
     confrontations at the plant gates, according to police and 
     the union.
       Production was stopped and no new talks were scheduled, 
     Delphi Packard spokesman Jim Kobus said today.
       ``One real key point for us is that Delphi Packard has 
     worked long and hard to build a diverse customer base, a lot 
     of non-GM customers. The difficulty of winning and growing 
     non-GM business is so challenging that when you interrupt 
     that supply line, the risk is you can damage that 
     relationship,'' Kobus said.
       He said it was too early to comment on when automakers 
     might feel the effects of the walkout.
       Union members have complained about retirement incentives 
     for older workers and wages and benefits for newer employees 
     who make 55 percent of the most senior hourly workers.

  Mr. Speaker, I see that we have been joined by the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], our very esteemed leader. I very much appreciate 
the opportunity to be able to tell the story of Wanda Napier this 
evening. I hope at some point we can bring her to Washington and let 
her tell her own story. I also appreciate being able to talk about the 
very brave workers in Ohio who run the risk of losing their jobs 
because they are standing firm at a time when they feel like pawns in a 
very powerful system of production globally. We just want them to know 
that we stand with them and our hearts are with them tonight.
  Mr. BONIOR. I thank my colleague for taking the time and for her 
leadership on this issue and for caring so

[[Page H2581]]

much for those who have been in many ways brutalized by a system that 
has run amuck in our country today and for putting a human face on this 
issue tonight by telling a story of a person who has gone through the 
difficulties and the sorrows and the change. Putting a human face on 
these issues is so important. We can talk numbers and we can talk 
statistics, but these are real people with real lives, who have 
families, who have hopes, who have dreams. We are watching these 
policies snatch away those hopes and those dreams. We have got to fight 
it. The gentlewoman has been at the forefront of doing that for years.
  My friend from Ohio talked about what is happening in outsourcing in 
Warren, OH. Of course, my colleagues know that recently the Goodyear 
Tire & Rubber Co. was on strike. I do not know if the gentlewoman 
alluded to that. I was not here.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I did not allude to it.
  Mr. BONIOR. There were 12,500 people that went on strike to demand 
decent wages and benefits and to limit outsourcing, which is a serious 
problem. Let me say that one of the major issues of that strike was the 
announcement by Goodyear that it was transferring production from 
Akron, OH to Santiago, Chile, resulting in 150 job losses. This issue 
is going to continue on and on unless we seriously address the wages 
and worker rights in our trade agreements. That is what we are here for 
today. We are talking about something that the administration wants to 
bring to the House floor. It is called fast track. It is a way to do 
trade negotiations without including the Congress in the formulation of 
that agreement. Agreements are made, they are brought to the Congress, 
and it is an up-or-down yes vote on the whole agreement and we do not 
have a say in it. That one might be OK from our perspective if we knew 
that in the core agreements, there would be negotiations dealing with 
the environmental issues, with labor issues, the trade issue, the whole 
question of wages and pensions and benefits and human rights. But they 
are not part of these discussions, and that is why we are so concerned 
about them.
  I would like to talk about one other thing tonight, if I could, 
because it is an article that appeared, and I know that we have 
discussed it on the floor today, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] 
and myself, and I see the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich] here who 
has an article I am going to talk about that appeared in the New York 
Times, I believe it was last week, it was on the front page of the 
business section, it says ``Borderline Working Class.'' This piece 
deals with the whole question of what has happened to the workers in 
Texas, in El Paso and all the border towns along that area.
  One would have expected that there would have been a boom from 
listening to all the proponents of NAFTA, that this would have changed 
the direction of the Texas economy for the better and there would be 
just great trade between El Paso and these other border towns and 
Mexico.
  I want to draw the attention of my colleagues this evening to what I 
call a casualty of NAFTA. It might surprise my colleagues to know that 
El Paso, TX, right along the border with Mexico, is a casualty of 
NAFTA. In last Thursday's New York Times, in the business section, 
there were a couple of stories. We would expect the city of El Paso, as 
I said, to be a winner under NAFTA. At least that is what the 
proponents said. But as the article in the New York Times shows, the 
exact opposite has taken place. The article first describes a situation 
of Sun Apparel, where workers stitch clothes for Polo, Fila, and 
Sassoon. Some of the women who work at Sun Apparel in El Paso made 
slightly more than $4.75 an hour, which is the minimum wage. Even after 
15 years of work, these women are making $4.75 an hour. But last month, 
Sun Apparel eliminated 300 jobs at the plant and shifted work to 
Mexico. Those workers, and 320 more who lost their job last year, were 
certified by the Labor Department as having lost their jobs through 
NAFTA. In Mexico, garment workers are usually paid $1 an hour. So the 
minimum wage does not even protect you anymore.
  Mr. Speaker, El Paso is where the rest of America is starting to 
catch up to, becoming fully integrated with the Mexican economy. 
Workers in El Paso must accept the minimum wage because the wages are 
so much lower just across the border. El Paso has lost more jobs to 
Mexican trade as certified by the Labor Department than anywhere else. 
Of the 5,600 workers who have been certified, only a fraction took 
advantage of the retraining program for NAFTA job loss victims. 
According to this Times article, and this is significant, that program 
left these workers with no skills or no jobs. The Federal Government 
has spent $18 million on retraining people in El Paso under this 
program, without any real results, and will be spending another $4.5 
million more to retrain workers yet again. In fact, the mayor of El 
Paso, who was once a champion of NAFTA, is now a critic of the 
agreement. El Paso's unemployment rate is soaring. It is up to 11 
percent. Juarez, just across the border from El Paso, has 177,000 
maquiladora jobs by the end of last year. It has gained 77,000 of those 
jobs in the last 2 years alone. NAFTA has driven thousands of jobs out 
of El Paso and depressed the wages of its workers.

                              {time}  2015

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, that is some level of a sucking sound south, 
is it not?
  Mr. BONIOR. It is certainly one of the largest Hoover vacuum cleaners 
that I have ever heard.
  Ms. KAPTUR. And by the way, they are moving jobs, if the gentleman 
will yield, out of Canton, OH, to Mexico as well.
  Mr. BONIOR. Canton, Ohio, and I can name some places in Michigan, and 
of course our friend, the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. Danner] was up 
here the other day talking about the two plants in her district that 
have moved entirely out.
  But you know it is not just the jobs. It is that downward pressure on 
wages. And I want to emphasize that tonight because we talk about jobs, 
but it is that constant pressure of the American worker that the 
employer comes to the bargaining table with them and says: ``Listen, if 
you do not take a freeze in your wages or a cut in your wages or a cut 
in your health benefits, your pension benefits, we are out of here. We 
are going south.''
  And as the chart that is next to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
illustrates, there was a study done by the Labor Department recently 
that was suppressed that showed that 62 percent of United States 
employers threatened to close plants rather than negotiate with or 
recognize a union implying or explicitly threatening to move jobs to 
Mexico; 62 percent.
  They said to these folks, ``You know, we can just go south, and we 
will go south,'' and that is driving down wages.
  Now for those people who actually do lose their job, and we have had 
anywhere between a quarter of a million and 600,000; we do not know the 
exact figure, but it is high; and we know we have got a trade deficit 
with Mexico now. We had a surplus of about $2 billion before NAFTA; it 
is about $16 billion deficit now, and that translates into about 
600,000 jobs if you use the proponents' formula. We know that of those 
people who have lost their jobs a good many of them, probably most of 
them, have gotten other jobs.
  Mr. SANDERS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I will. When I make my point, I will yield to my friend 
from Vermont. The problem is the jobs that they have got, they have 
gotten at about two-thirds the wage level which they were making before 
the original job is lost. And of course that just puts incredible 
pressure on them to reach a sustainable living wage for their families. 
So they get another job, they are sort of working two jobs, and when 
they are working two jobs or three jobs, they are not home for their 
kids' soccer game, they are not home for PTA meetings or school nights 
out, and then the whole family structure suffers.
  So it is more than just jobs and wages. It is the whole social fabric 
of our society today.
  And I yield to my friend from Vermont if the gentlewoman from Ohio 
will yield.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here with the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], the

[[Page H2582]]

gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kucinich], who are leading the fight against NAFTA.
  The gentleman from Michigan makes an important point about wages, and 
let me ask my friends this question:
  Every day that we pick up the newspaper we hear about the booming 
American economy. Do we not? In fact there was an article in the paper 
about how we have to clamp down on the boom, it is just off the wall it 
is so fantastic. But if you read page 62 in the little print about the 
boom when they talk about the wages that middle-class workers are 
getting in the midst of this boom, what do you find? My goodness. The 
real wages for American workers are continuing to decline.
  Yes, the CEO's of major corporations saw a 54-percent increase in 
their compensation. Yes, the stock market is hitting off the wall. Yes, 
the rich are getting richer. But what about the average worker?
  Mr. Speaker, the front pages of corporate America's newspapers do not 
talk about it, but for the average American worker, despite all of the 
so-called boom, the real wages are going down, people continue to work 
longer hours for low wages, and one of the reasons why is precisely 
what the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] and the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior] are talking about. If our workers are forced to 
compete against desperate people in Mexico or in China who are trying 
to get by on starvation wages, if we merge these economies what is the 
ultimate result?
  Mr. Speaker, it does not take an Einstein to figure it out. If there 
is a employer over here who is going to pay somebody 50 cents an hour, 
why are they going to pay you $15 or $20 an hour?
  I would submit for the Record a remarkable article. Many of you must 
have seen it. It was April 27, 1997, the Associated Press, and what 
they talk about is Nike in Vietnam. Now Nike has a habit of going to 
wherever in the world wages are at rock bottom. Mexico is much too high 
wage for Nike. They are now in Vietnam. They have determined that wages 
in Vietnam are the lowest in the world.
  Let me quote this:

       In demonstrations on Friday workers burnt cars and 
     ransacked the factory's office saying the company, Nike, was 
     not paying them a $2.50 cents a day minimum wage.

  That is our competition. That is what, much of what, the global 
economy is about.
  American workers, you really want to compete? Are you ready to go 
below $2.50 an hour? Nike might come back to America and hire you if 
you are ready to go for $2 a day. Ready to do that?
  And that is, I think, the point that we are trying to make, and that 
is how it ties into the most important issue which is the declining 
wages.
  Mr. BONIOR. And I think the Nike Corp., and correct me if I am wrong, 
you have the article in front of you; they are paying the workers in 
Vietnam 30 cents an hour.
  Mr. SANDERS. That is about right.
  Mr. BONIOR. Thirty cents an hour.
  Now I mean the Disney Corp. engages in the same situation. I mean 
they had a guy who they fired as their president, Michael Ovitz. They 
paid him $90 million, severance package; he got $90 million to be 
fired, and the guy who fired him got $776 million over a 10-year period 
in the contract.
  Now having said that, they make their clothes not in Texas, not in 
North Carolina, not in Illinois. They have those sweat shirts and those 
hats all stitched down in Haiti where they pay people 28 cents an hour.
  I was watching the evening news, I forgot what network had it on this 
weekend, but they did a story about the Caribbean basin, I suspect a 
followup or during the President's visit down there. They are losing 
jobs to Mexico, the Caribbean basin countries. The Caribbean basin 
countries are losing all types of jobs to Mexico because they are 
getting a better deal in Mexico because of the NAFTA agreement and the 
low wages and the guaranteed investment.

  This NAFTA is broken. I mean, they want us to move ahead with the 
fast track that will include other countries based on what we have 
under NAFTA, and it is like your house being on fire and your basement 
being flooded. You do not add another addition while that is all 
happening. You fix it first before you go on. And before we move ahead 
on fast track it seems to me, and to us, I think, is that we have got 
to correct a very inequitable, unfair situation in which the 
gentlewoman from Ohio has depicted in human terms very well this 
evening, and I thank her for it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, if I might just reclaim a moment here before 
recognizing our wonderful colleague from Ohio? The gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior] has been a champion. I remember during the NAFTA 
debate he said this is our way of life, we are fighting for our way of 
life, this is who we are. We are not talking about something that is 
out there; it is about the struggle that we have had to create a middle 
class and allow people to sustain themselves and to experience the best 
that American life has to offer, and the country owes the gentleman a 
debt of gratitude, not just our region, but the whole country, and I 
thank the gentleman for sticking with us on this. I just wanted to 
mention that when you were saying that probably the biggest threat in 
these trade agreements when they are not well-balanced and people, many 
people, are not at the table, creates this downward pressure on our 
living standards, on our wages.
  This is an excellent poster that we have blown up here that came from 
a company in Illinois, and they told their workers that the workers' 
jobs might go south for more than just the winter, and it says on the 
bottom this was posted on the company bulletin board. This is an 
automotive plant. It says, ``There are Mexicans willing to do your job 
for $3 to $4 an hour. The free trade treaty allows this.''
  And that is not just a subtle message to the work force, but it is 
that the downward pressure is heavy duty, and that is why workers at 
plants like the Delphi plant in Warren, OH, have said, all right, you 
want to draw a line in the sand, we are drawing the line for America.
  So I think this is proof in the pudding of exactly what you are 
talking about, and I wanted to thank the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. 
Sanders] for coming down here this evening and being with us. It seems 
like we were here before, we were here before and we tried to tell this 
story. Now we have 3 years of experience to measure, and we intend to 
measure, and we have new Members like the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kucinich] who has hit the ground running here, who comes from having 
been mayor of Cleveland and comes from a place that has experienced the 
industrial and agricultural transformation over the last several 
decades, has lots to say on this, and we welcome you this evening.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, and I am certainly glad to join 
the delegation of which you are a leader in this effort to call to the 
attention of the American people so many of the inequities which exist 
in our trade agreement known as NAFTA, and it is certainly a pleasure 
to be in the Congress of the United States with such leaders as you and 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] and the gentleman from Vermont 
[Mr. Sanders] who are outstanding spokespersons on this issue to let 
the American people know what is going on because people who follow 
government always want information so that they can make intelligent 
decisions about whether or not they support policies.
  And when I saw the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] produce that 
poster, which I have a copy of as well, with the UAW: Your jobs may go 
south for more than just the winter; this was distributed in an attempt 
to frustrate what we in this country recognize as the basic right of 
working people to associate and organize. And when an organizing drive 
was occurring in Macomb, IL, at this company, it was NTN Bauer, these 
leaflets began appearing throughout the plant. There are Mexicans 
willing to do your job for $3 to $4 an hour; free trade treaty allows 
that.
  So what NAFTA has produced is a different type of behavior on the 
part of those who are running the companies where workers are now 
threatened, and they are threatened in an insidious way because, if we 
in this country do not always have the ability to exercise our most 
basic rights as citizens, which we recognize as the right of 
association guaranteed in the first amendment and derived from that the

[[Page H2583]]

right to organize, the right to be able to affiliate, the right to be 
able to extend into areas like collective bargaining; if we have a 
trade agreement that effectively can lead others to trash those basic 
rights, then we have a trade agreement which abrogates some of the 
rights which the people of this country gained when this country was 
founded over 200 years ago.
  Now what then can be the remedy? Well, there certainly is a remedy, 
and that is the Fast Track Accountability Act which specifically 
provides that workers' rights must be protected, that we would adopt 
and enforce laws to extend internationally recognized workers' rights 
in any country involved, and those rights would include, and we would 
codify this, this would be in the law, the rights of freedom of 
association, the right to organize, which Congressman Sanders talked 
about in one of our last discussions, the right to organize and bargain 
collectively, the prohibition of force or compulsory labor, 
establishment of a minimum wage for the employment of children and 
acceptable working conditions with respect to minimum wage and hours of 
work and occupational safety and health.
  Some will say, well, we have some of that in existing NAFTA. We have 
very weak side agreements which are not really enforceable, and there 
is no punishment if someone does not abide by and respect the rights of 
workers. The same is true of environmental standards. NAFTA is causing 
a leveling down of environmental standards.
  We know also from other trade agreements the World Trade Organization 
can in fact impose, in effect abrogating our Constitution, can attack 
our sovereignty by saying that our environmental standards, which help 
to assure the quality of life in this country, in effect are an 
impermissible trade barrier and therefore the United States must either 
pay a fine or other action will be taken against the country. This 
attacks our sovereignty as a nation.

                              {time}  2030

  So we need in a fast track agreement guarantees not only to protect 
workers, not only to protect labor, but to protect the environment as 
well, which would mitigate global climate change, which would cause a 
reduction in the production of ozone depleting substances, which would 
ban international dumping of highly radioactive waste and all of these 
things which we need to put in the law. That is the only way that fast 
track should ever be considered. Those must be in the law, and once it 
gets into law, if there is a violation, then we could treat it as an 
actionable unfair trade practice, subject to potential sanctions such 
as withdrawal of free trade privileges.
  Now, we are not helpless in this country. We have the ability to 
retake, to regain control of our destiny. We have an ability to reclaim 
our sovereignty so that the World Trade Organization is not in effect 
nullifying the laws made by this Congress. But the only way we can do 
that is that as long as NAFTA exists, and I certainly am not an 
advocate for that, but as long as it does exist, the only way we can 
move forward is through having labor and environmental standards, high 
standards which must be at the core of any agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, that is something I offer for my colleagues' 
consideration, because I think that is something that would enable the 
public, which watches these events so carefully, to have a little bit 
more confidence in these kinds of agreements. We must secure workers' 
rights. If we do not do that, if we are not willing to do that in 
international trade agreements, we will sacrifice the rights of workers 
here at home, and that will lead to a deterioration of our democratic 
society.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield on that point, 
because that is really a key point here. When we talk about these 
agreements, we talk about them in terms of trade, we talk about them in 
terms of tariff, and I tried to broaden it with my colleagues here this 
evening to talk about the environment and labor rights and human 
rights.
  The gentleman mentioned something just now that goes deeper than even 
that, it goes to the depths of what we are about as a country, it goes 
to the heart of our system, it goes to democracy. The gentleman used 
the word democracy. That is what this is about.
  The proponents of this fairlyland globalized trade scheme that we are 
now engaged in want to take us back to the 19th century, before people 
had these basic rights. I am talking about worker rights now, the right 
to organize, to assemble, to freely associate, to form unions, to 
collectively bargain, the right to strike, the right to have certain 
labor standards and job protections and safety standards.
  That just did not happen, that happened because a lot of people 
struggled for 100 years to make it happen. They marched, they were 
beaten, they lost their jobs, they were killed, they were assassinated 
in order for us to have these rights, to be able to come together and 
bargain for our work.
  As a result of those sacrifices, the wealthiest and most prosperous 
Nation in the world and the largest middle class in the history of the 
Earth, of this world, was developed. And now, we are, through our trade 
agreements, creating a situation in which there is a rush to the bottom 
rung to roll back all of these rights.
  The woman who works at Sun Apparel making $4.75 an hour lost her job, 
making the minimum wage. The minimum wage does not even help her 
anymore, because we have made a marriage with Mexico on the economy and 
it is across the border. Now she has to compete at a lower level, she 
has to compete without job security, she has to compete without 
environmental safeguards there along the border and along the river.
  So it is more than just jobs and tariffs and downward pressures on 
wages, it is about being able to come together as people and organize 
and to assemble and to bargain for your sweat.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think the 
proof basically is in the pudding; is it not? Now, if the trade 
policies and our current economic policies are working well, then the 
proof is there. Then we will have an expanding middle class; right? 
Then the new jobs that are being created will pay people decent wages; 
is that not correct? Then we will have a society where the gap between 
the rich and the poor grows narrower.
  But what in fact has been happening since the development of these 
trade policies? What we now have in the United States is the wealthiest 
1 percent of the population owning 42 percent of the wealth, which is 
more than the bottom 90 percent. Now I think we have not been totally 
fair tonight, because I think we should acknowledge that these trade 
agreements do do some people good.
  Mr. BONIOR. They do, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, we have to be honest about it, yes, for the 
vast majority of workers, wages are going down. Yes, we have lost 
hundreds of thousands of jobs for our working people, but we have not 
been totally fair tonight; and that is we must acknowledge that some 
people are doing well. We have to say that, and we do have to point out 
that the CEO's of major American corporations last year, and I am sure 
everybody will be happy to hear this, especially if you are among the 
richest 1 percent, saw a 54 percent increase in their compensation.
  So some people are doing very well. The average worker has seen a 
decline in his or her wages, but the richest people in America have 
never had it so good. So that explains to us why they pour millions and 
millions of dollars into their lobbyist friends and their television 
ads and newspaper ads telling us why we should support NAFTA and GATT.
  The trade agreement is working for all of you out there who are 
millionaires and billionaires. In fact, over the last 15 years it is 
rather remarkable. While the real wages of American workers have gone 
down, we have seen a proliferation of millionaires.
  In 1982 there were 12 billionaires in the United States, 12 
billionaires. Today there are 135. So in all fairness, these trade 
agreements are working very well for millionaires and billionaires. But 
for the vast majority of our people, they are resulting in significant 
job loss and the pressure to lower wages.
  Now, some people will say, I do not work in a factory, it does not 
affect me. What is my problem? It does affect you, it affects you 
because when UAW workers see their wages go down, then when your 
employer, even if you are in

[[Page H2584]]

a nonunion shop, has to deal with you, what he will say is, hey, I do 
not have to pay you $15 an hour, I can pay you $12, I can pay you $8 an 
hour. If we have Mexican workers prepared to work for 50 cents an hour, 
I will start you off at $5 an hour.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the scariest aspects about the new economy is the 
decline in real wages of high school graduates. These are the young 
people who have never gone to college. What we are talking about is 
entry level jobs for young Americans graduating high school, for young 
men it is 30 percent less than what it was 15 years ago. For young 
women it is 17 percent less.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, that is a phenomenal figure. If the 
gentleman will repeat that again, because some of us are aware of it, 
but a lot of folks in this country do not understand that as the 
gentleman points out, the people at the very top, in fact, it goes 
down. People in the top 5 percent in America are doing very well today, 
but beyond that, it slips dramatically.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for young people graduating high school, 
their entry level jobs are now paying 30 percent less than was the case 
15 years ago. For young women, it is about 17 or 18 percent less.
  Furthermore, Americans at the lower end of the wage scale are now the 
lowest-paid workers in the industrialized world. Eighteen percent of 
American workers with full-time jobs are paid so little that their 
wages do not enable them to live above the poverty level. Welcome to 
the global economy.
  The point that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] made earlier, 
in many ways, what this economy is looking like is what Mexico is: a 
few people at the top, and millions of people struggling just to exist.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, if I could just make a brief point, last 
night I was in Lima, OH, giving a speech to a large number of people. 
And afterwards three different citizens came up to me, two who were 
high school graduates, and one a mother of a gentleman who is 30 years 
old but is working in a temporary position. And that is the fastest 
work category in our country, fastest growing category, temporary work. 
She said: ``Marcy, my son is worried because in two weeks he loses his 
temporary job.''
  It is not just low wages of these workers, it is the insecurity of 
not knowing whether there will be a job for them. The other two young 
men that were there were just seeking work, seeking to better 
themselves, having to work at jobs like Payless Shoes, which imports 
all of its shoes. And when you are a manager for a lot of those jobs, 
you qualify for food stamps.
  Is this the kind of America that we want to produce, one where when 
you work, and in Mexico, as we were told by the people down there, they 
work for hunger wages. These people in Lima, OH last night had several 
problems in trying to locate steady, well-paying jobs where they could 
secure a future for themselves and their family.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, as the gentlewoman knows, the largest 
employer in the country today is not General Motors, it is Manpower 
temporary services. The company pays no health benefits, no pensions. 
It is temporary work, the largest employer, and it is moving more and 
more in that direction.
  I wanted to expand on what both of my colleagues have just said about 
the workers. Because it is not just happening here in America, in the 
United States, it is occurring, as the gentleman pointed out, in Mexico 
as well.
  When we began the NAFTA debate, the worker in Mexico was making $1 an 
hour. Now that worker, and I have seen it with my own eyes in a trip 
that I took down there two months ago, is making 70 cents an hour. The 
people at the top in Mexico, they have created an incredible burst of 
billionaires, a class of billionaires down there.
  I have a friend who told me, and I do not know if this is true, but I 
am reluctant to repeat it tonight, but I have a sense that it is, 
because he is very conservative in his estimates and he understands 
these issues very well. And he is a very learned person, who told me 
that in Del Mar, a little town north of San Diego in California, there 
are 600, 600 millionaires with Mexican citizenship, 600. So the wealthy 
make their money, they live often across the border here, and the 
workers are being paid 70 cents an hour. Their value of their wages 
have, since NAFTA, declined 30, 40 percent. So it is workers on both 
sides of the border.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on one point?
  As the gentleman is talking, I am thinking about when NAFTA was 
discussed here, and we were told President Salinas had the greatest 
democratic heart, with a small D, beating in this century. Can you 
imagine a President of the United States being so disgraced that he 
then is a man without a country?
  That gentleman who headed Mexico now may be living in Ireland, for 
all we know, and his brother is in jail, and will be standing trial for 
drug-related charges, and we act, I mean the proponents act as if 
nothing happened.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, all the editorial writers in the country, 
they thought Mr. Salinas was a great guy. He went to Harvard and he is 
going to take Mexico into the next millennium and they were just as 
proud as punch to be affiliated and associated with him. The fact of 
the matter is he has not turned out very well, nor has his brother, nor 
has his policies. You would expect somebody to recognize this and say 
well, we made a mistake, but no, they cannot admit they made a mistake. 
My goodness, gracious, they are infallible, because they are, as the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] says, part of this whole corporate 
machine, this multinational transnational machine which spews this 
stuff out in the press on a daily basis about the upstanding, wonderful 
nature of these leaders and tries to pull the wool over everyone's 
eyes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for a moment, 
I remember during the NAFTA debate, one of the frustrations that we had 
is that virtually every major newspaper, without exception, every major 
newspaper in America told us how great the NAFTA agreement would be.
  Now I am wondering if anybody here tonight knows if there has been 
one of those newspapers yet that has apologized to their readers and 
has said, whoops, we were wrong. Are my colleagues aware of any 
newspapers that have made that statement?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of a single one, I would say 
to my colleague.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I am not either, but just in 30 seconds 
here, I read the New York Times very carefully, because it is a good 
newspaper and I generally agree with them, not all of the time, with 
their editorials, and they are starting to express themselves in ways 
that they understand that there was something very wrong with NAFTA.
  They are not going to admit that they were wrong, but they have been 
writing editorials recently with respect to the environment and Chile 
and labor standards, and so there is starting to be a slight sign, but 
that is about it. The rest of the business has been very silent, as the 
gentleman has indicated.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, we just want to thank all of the membership 
for listening and for those who are tuned in on public broadcasting or 
C-SPAN, we want to thank the public for their interest in NAFTA, and 
more to come.

{time}  2045

                          ____________________