[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 17 (Monday, January 29, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H964-H965]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             GLOBALIZATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if we take a look at the last half century, 
it is clear that there has been no greater force for positive economic 
and political change than globalization. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I said 
globalization.

[[Page H965]]

  Greater integration of the world's economies has lifted hundreds of 
millions of people out of poverty in the developing world, nearly 
doubled the middle class population in Mexico and expanded our economy 
into a $13 trillion global leader for greater economic and political 
freedom.
  The benefits of globalization can be seen every single time that a 
Chinese blogger gets past government censors or a U.S. company trains 
factory owners in Thailand in worker rights and protections.
  So how did the greatest engine of global prosperity become so 
maligned? How did this poverty fighting, democracy enhancing force get 
blamed for all of the world's evils, from job losses in Michigan to 
poor water quality in Guatemala?
  In part, Mr. Speaker, this can be explained by the fact that 
globalization has improved so many aspects of our lives, but it has 
done so in very subtle ways. As a result, we do not always recognize 
its benefits.
  When you go to the grocery store and find fresh grapes in the dead of 
winter, you might not know that the fact that they are there and fresh 
and reasonably priced is that they come from Chile. You just know that 
you get to enjoy those winter grapes.
  When you buy educational software for your second grader, you might 
not know that it was developed by a small business in Pennsylvania, 
assembled in Malaysia and serviced by a technical support firm in 
India. You just know that your daughter is starting to do a better job 
at reading.
  When you buy a new TV because Wal-Mart finally had it at a price you 
could afford, you might not know that they cut costs by developing and 
implementing a revolutionary operational structure. You may not know 
that they source, ship and track goods to and from every corner of the 
globe by using such innovative practices that they have transformed the 
entire retail industry. You just know that you get to watch this Sunday 
in the Super Bowl the Colts and the Bears play away on an amazing 
screen.
  Globalization has impacted us in countless ways, with improvements 
that range from a better MP3 player to a better job, and together they 
contribute to a better life.
  But, Mr. Speaker, while the improvements to our standard of living 
often go unnoticed, the challenges that come with change are painfully 
clear. When a factory closes down, the hardship is very real and very 
visible. For the individuals who face those tough times, winter grapes 
and flat-screen TVs seem absolutely meaningless.

                              {time}  1945

  When confronted with the difficult challenges change can bring, it is 
very natural to condemn change itself. But like all hard things in 
life, it is just not that simple. While one company suffers from 
competition from China, several others thrive by utilizing low cost, 
high-quality Chinese goods. A tech company contracts with a call center 
in India; and as a result of the cost savings, they can afford to hire 
new programmers here in the United States.
  In fact, the numbers overwhelmingly show that globalization has been 
an enormous net positive for job creation right here at home: over 20 
million new jobs since the implementation of the North American Free 
Trade Agreement, including more than 7 million new jobs in the last 
3\1/2\ years. Unemployment, as we all know, is at a near historic low 
of 4\1/2\ percent.
  But, Mr. Speaker, while the benefits have been dispersed to all 
Americans, there is no denying that there are those who have faced 
great challenges. So do we try to halt the march of globalization? Let 
us set aside the question of whether we should deny the tremendous 
benefits for all in order to try to protect the few.
  Let us ask the question, Can we do that? Can we protect an industry 
from losing jobs? If so, do we protect textile workers or the workers 
who design, market, and sell apparel? Do we protect manufacturers that 
make steel products or the manufacturers that use steel products? Maybe 
we should all buy American. Does that mean that we buy Fords that are 
made in Canada and assembled with Mexican parts? Or do we buy Toyotas 
made in Kentucky with American and Japanese parts? Do we buy iPods 
designed in California, but assembled in China? The fact is, 
globalization has made old ideas about protectionism absolutely 
obsolete.
  Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we recognize the leading role that 
we as a country are facing. I urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way to 
join in support of this effort.
  But like all hard things in life, it's just not that simple. While 
one company suffers from competition with China, several others thrive 
by utilizing low-cost, high-quality Chinese goods. A tech company 
contracts with a call center in India, and as a result of the cost 
savings, they can afford to hire new programmers. In fact, the numbers 
overwhelmingly show that globalization has been an enormous net 
positive for job creation: Over 20 million new jobs since the 
implementation of NAFTA, including 7 million jobs in the last 3\1/2\ 
years. Unemployment has dropped to 4.5 percent, a near-historic low.
  But while the benefits have been dispersed to all Americans, there's 
no denying that there are those who have faced great challenges. So do 
we try to halt the march of globalization? Let's set aside the question 
of whether we should deny the tremendous benefits for all in order to 
try to protect the few. Let's ask the question of can we?
  Can we protect an industry from losing jobs? If so, do we protect 
textile workers, or the workers who design, market and sell apparel? Do 
we protect manufacturers that make steel products, or the manufacturers 
that use steel products? Maybe we should all ``Buy American.'' Does 
that mean we buy Fords, made in Canada and assembled with Mexican 
parts? Or do we buy Toyotas, made in Kentucky with American and 
Japanese parts? Do we buy iPods, designed in California, but assembled 
in China? The fact is, globalization has made old ideas about 
protectionism obsolete. Its impact is wide, pervasive and irreversible. 
We simply do not have the option anymore of withdrawing from the world 
and denying ourselves the benefits of a global marketplace.
  Our only option is to use the prosperity it has brought to help those 
who are struggling. It doesn't matter why a job is lost. Whether 
globalization played a part or not, what matters is that workers have 
the skills they need to find even better jobs than the ones that were 
lost. If we make a commitment to American competitiveness, including 
worker competitiveness, we can both enjoy the benefits and address the 
challenges of a global economy.
  What we can't afford to do is demonize the source of our unparalleled 
prosperity. There's no question individuals will face hardship at 
times, and that naturally breeds anxiety. But anti-globalization 
rhetoric that exploits and preys upon the anxieties of working families 
is cheap, dirty politics. And it is dangerous. It risks the growing 
standard of living that the world's economic liberalizers are enjoying. 
I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject the 
politics of isolationism and continue to pursue the path of greater 
economic integration in the worldwide marketplace.

                          ____________________