[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
____________________