[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 37 (Monday, March 5, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2149-H2156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE ECONOMY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
General Leave
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days with which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on the subject matter of my
special order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maine?
There was no objection.
Mr. MICHAUD. At this time, I know the gentleman from Wisconsin has
another meeting he has to attend, so I would recognize the Congressman
Steve Kagen from Wisconsin.
Mr. KAGEN. Thank you very much, Congressman Michaud. I certainly
appreciate being with you this evening, especially after an
enlightening hour of finding out that really they weren't borrowing and
spending money.
But, indeed, this is the class of 2006. We were elected to take a
positive change in a new direction. We are not the party of borrow and
spend and borrow and spend. Because as you all know, the first two
letters of borrow and spend are B and S. We are here this evening to
talk with you about our trade policies. Indeed, our foreign trade with
China has become entirely a negative number.
In this brief slide, the 2006 trade deficit will show you that the
United States is losing. We have lost $233 billion a year in 2006. In
the first 2001 numbers, $83 billion deficit has mushroomed to $233
billion.
In 2006, China ranked as the fourth largest export market for the
United States and the second largest import market. They are our
trading partner. We have had the American century, and now we are
moving into what will become the Chinese century. But we should be
ordered in the rule of law, and unfortunately for us here in the United
States, we suffer because they are not following all of the laws.
In a recent article in The New York Times, it reads in part that the
Chinese's real advantage results from subsidies. They include
government grants for modernization, low-cost loans, debt forgiveness,
tax breaks for export or businesses and subsidies for suppliers of wood
and pulp, something we are keenly aware of in Wisconsin, in my
district, which used to be known as Paper Valley.
According to government data available from the Chinese government
themselves, more than 70,000 illegal seizures occurred of private
property, of land in 2004. In 2003, the Chinese admit that 168,000
occurrences of seizures took place.
{time} 2045
Well, this is what happens in a Communist country, and it is to their
advantage.
The subsidies: According to our own U.S. Trade Representative, ``The
Chinese subsidies at issue are widely available and offer significant
benefits, particularly through income and value added tax breaks. They
make it harder for U.S. products to compete with Chinese products, not
only in the U.S. and Chinese markets but in any market in the world.
They accomplish this by providing a competitive advantage to a wide
range of Chinese exports, including, for example, various steel
products, wood products, such as hardwood, plywood and paper products,
and by providing incentives for Chinese firms to purchase domestic
products instead of those from the United States.''
United States' manufacturers and exporters are suffering because
there is another trade partner of ours that is not following the rules.
Indeed, 15 to 20 percent of all products made in China are counterfeit
materials. They need to follow the rules.
On this slide is a measure of their unfair trade. There are three
things primarily that China is not complying with: currency
manipulation, their yuan is below where market prices would bear the
price; illegal subsidies; and illegal grants, grants given to companies
that have no intention of paying them back. And what can we do about
this? We really need balance in our trade deals. We don't need free
trade; we need fair trade.
How do we fix an unfair trade deal? We need new leadership in the
administration. We need a President and an administration that is
interested in fair trade. And what must we do? We must establish fair
trade and export our values, not our jobs. After all, if we don't make
anything in America, we simply won't have anything.
Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Congressman Kagen. This has
definitely been enlightening. I really appreciate all the charts that
you have. And you are absolutely right, the American people want the
new direction for this country and are very pleased particularly with
the freshman class, yourself leading the charge to make sure that we do
have fair trade agreements. I want to thank you for your time coming to
the floor this evening to talk about this very important issue.
I would now like to recognize another freshman Member of the 110th
Congress class, the gentleman from Illinois who has taken a real
leadership role as well on trade, but also on veterans affairs issues
where he replaced a former colleague in this body, Lane Evans, who has
been a mentor and has been a leader also on veterans' issues. I would
like
[[Page H2150]]
to yield to Congressman Hare of Illinois.
Mr. HARE. Thank you, Mr. Michaud. And I want to thank you for your
leadership on this whole issue of trade. I was here last week, as you
know, and we were talking about the Employee Free Choice Act. And I
spoke then as a former labor organizer about the difficulties working
men and women have in being able to join the union. Tonight I am here,
and I want to tell a brief story, if I could, about what I think this
whole trade situation boils down to.
In my district, we have a city called Galesburg, Illinois. It was the
home of Maytag, manufacturing washers, driers and refrigerators; 1,600
very talented men and women worked in that factory. On two different
occasions, the workers of that plant gave pay concessions back to keep
that plant open. The State of Illinois, my home State, gave Maytag $24
million in State taxes for renovations to keep the factory there. The
plant, about 8 months later, announced that it was moving to Sonora,
Mexico.
The CEO said it was because of several things, but the bottom line
was they could make more money manufacturing in Sonora, Mexico, for
cheap labor. And 1,600 of those people are out of work, and 1,000 more
recently followed a few weeks later in Herron, Illinois, from another
Maytag facility. And the CEO of that corporation said, ``You just have
to understand, Congressman, I am in the business to make money for my
shareholders. I don't really care about the people of this city and the
educational system and what happens to them, and the small businesses
that feed into Maytag. I am here to make money.''
Well, I am here tonight to say a couple of things on this whole issue
of trade. First, let me say, I said this on the campaign trail,
Congressman. I am a card-carrying capitalist; I believe in trade. We
have to have trade. I am not a protectionist, an isolationist. But I do
know this. As my colleague, Representative Kagen, said, we have to have
some fair trade.
Under this NAFTA agreement, it was tough enough to lose those jobs,
but we negotiated that; we, meaning our trade folks, negotiated a 5-
year head start for those Maytag jobs in Mexico, gave the Mexican
government a 5-year head start on refrigerator products. Now, how are
you going to compete?
I went to an editorial board, and I remember saying to the publisher
of the newspaper, if your competitor across the river had a 5-year head
start on subscriptions and advertising and being able to get the news
out each and every day, and you could not publish for 5 years, do you
think you would be at a distinct disadvantage? He said, ``Absolutely.''
So here is what I think we need to do, in plain and simple language
from a former clothing worker: I think we have to stop this exportation
of manufacturing jobs across this country. And we have to be not just
angry about it; we have to say: I am more than angry. I am now going to
do something that we haven't done before. I am going to raise my voice
and I am going to tell my elected Members of the Congress of the United
States that if you vote to send our jobs overseas, we are going to vote
to send you back to your district permanently, because in this
business, we are supposed to be here to represent people.
The job of a Member of the United States Congress, to me, is standing
up for ordinary people, and I am tired of seeing our jobs shipped
overseas. And, more importantly, the American people hopefully watching
and listening tonight are tired of their tax dollars being spent to
subsidize those jobs being sent to Sonora, Mexico, where, by the way,
the people down there have no trade unions, don't have enough money to
even purchase the products that they are making. And I believe that all
of us, whether you are a Republican or Democrat or Independent, have
seen the hemorrhaging.
In textile, in my industry, thousands of jobs are gone, not because
people couldn't do it, but because they can't compete against 18 cents
an hour. It is impossible. Not simply because these people were getting
benefits and other things that they desperately needed so they can do
like I did and buy a home and put their kids through school and go to
college and do the right thing; these are veterans of our country who
have fought and defended it. They come back and had a job that was
taken away from them, not because of anything they did wrong.
So here is what I propose: How about a little corporate
responsibility? But how about, let's tell our trade negotiators that we
want trade, but let's make it fair and free? Let us don't negotiate our
manufacturing jobs overseas. And, by the way, let me just say, I have a
lot of agriculture in my district, and farmers are the last group
brought to bear on the trade negotiations. They are never brought to
the table. I think we have to have, as Representative Kagen said, an
administration and a Congress that says to the trade negotiators, look,
we want trade; we want to be able to negotiate a decent standard of
trade for our folks. But we will not do it by simply abdicating our
manufacturing base, whether it is in steel or textile or automobiles,
whatever it is, because there are hundreds of thousands of people in
this country, and not every one of them is going to sit behind a
computer terminal the rest of their life and work. They want to be
welders. They want to produce steel. They want to produce automobiles.
They want to cut men's suits like I am wearing tonight that, by the
way, was made in Chicago, Illinois, by working men and women.
So I would just encourage everybody this evening as we have this
debate on trade that, from my perspective, I ran on this issue, and I
am going to be a Congressman on this issue. I am not going to vote for
a trade deal that is going to send one more job overseas. I am not
going to vote for a trade deal that abdicates the responsibility, and
to go back to my district and as some people say, well, you know, we
are in a global economy. It is high tech. Well, I understand I am in a
global economy. I wasn't born yesterday. But I also know, to those men
and women from Maytag that don't know what they are going to do for
their health care now that it is gone, for health care, their pensions
that are on the line that they are losing, those people from KSIH that
lost their jobs simply because they happen to be a union plan and maybe
made a bit too much money; I say to those folks that, today, this
Congress needs to stand up for working men and women. It needs to say
we want trade in this country. We will work very hard to make sure that
we have the ability to export our products, but at the same time, the
one product that we are no longer going to export in this country is
the men and women and their futures and their children, because there
is no place for that in fair and free trade.
With that, I just want to thank the gentleman for allowing me to
speak this evening for a few moments on this issue. I believe very
deeply in this. The great news about being a freshman is sometimes we
don't come with the best prepared speeches. I think we speak a lot from
the heart. But I can tell you this much, from a former clothing
perspective, in our union, there is a movie called, ``The
Inheritance,'' that talks about how the union was formed. And at the
very end of it, a little old man looks into the end, and I would say to
our friends on the other side of the aisle who don't want to work with
us on this straight policy, he says, ``You think this is the end? My
friend, this is only the beginning.''
This 1-hour tonight is the beginning of changing trade policy in this
country and in this Chamber. And I am honored to be part of it.
Mr. MICHAUD. I thank you, Representative Hare, for your leadership
role in this as well.
If I understand your comments correctly, you are not against trade
deals, but you want to make sure that they are fair trade deals. And I
really appreciate your perspective. But especially just coming off of a
campaign, being a freshman Member working up in your State of Illinois,
you know what is going on.
I think, all too often, once people get here in Washington, D.C.,
they tend to forget what is really happening in reality. And reality
is, we have lost over 3 million jobs nationwide because of our unfair
trade deals, and we have got to bring equity back in that. So I really
appreciate your leadership in that role and look forward to working
with you as we move forward to make sure that we do have fair trade
deals here in this Congress.
[[Page H2151]]
It is now my great pleasure to introduce another freshman Member who
has also taken a leadership role, from Iowa, Congressman Bruce Braley.
Mr. BRALEY. I would like to thank my friend from Maine, and also my
friend from Illinois who happened to bring up the issue with the Maytag
jobs. And I think this leads us to another topic that is not discussed
very often in terms of some of the hidden costs of our current trade
policy.
The former world headquarters for Maytag was located in Newton, Iowa.
And I grew up about 30 minutes from Newton, Iowa. I got my first
driver's license at the Jasper County Courthouse in Newton, Iowa. Over
150 years ago, my great, great grandfather, George Washington Braley,
walked from up in your neck of the woods from Vermont all the way to
Iowa and settled in Jasper County. And Maytag has been a foundation of
the economy in Jasper County for many, many years, and Mr. Hare talked
about the plant in Illinois, the Maytag plant that lost many of its
jobs to Mexico.
What happened about 10 years ago was, in an effort to develop
competition between competing Maytag factories for the Neptune washers,
it was decided that there were going to be incentives offered by the
State of Iowa and the State of Illinois in the competition to keep
those jobs in America. And so the legislature in Illinois and the
legislature in Iowa both went to work to pass special tax statuses for
expensing of manufacturing equipment to make it more attractive for
those companies in Iowa and Illinois to be able to compete for these
new Neptune washers.
Unfortunately, as we have seen, that competition was short-term only.
And the Maytag headquarters no longer exists in Newton, Iowa. The
Maytag jobs in Illinois have now left for Mexico. And we are seeing the
impact that this trade policy that we have pursued for the past decade
is having on American workers.
And, like my friend from Illinois, nobody I talk to, my friends in
labor, my friends in small businesses and manufacturing, thinks that
trade is a bad thing. We need to encourage trade, because that is what
creates job opportunities for American workers. What we are talking
about is making sure that our trade policies are fair and balanced. And
one of the unique things that I have seen since I came here is that we
seem to see more and more small- and medium-sized manufacturers and
labor coming together and talking about a need for a comprehensive
reform of our trade policies.
One of the things we know is that the Constitution gave this body,
Congress, an important role to play in international trade, and one of
the problems with the fast-track trade promotion authority that
previous Congresses gave to the chief executive was that, in a sense,
it involved an abdication of our responsibilities to be an active
partner in setting trade policies. And what that means is that we have
also abdicated some of our responsibilities to the workers of this
country, to the workers of international countries where trade laws and
workers rights are not held to the same high standards they are in the
United States. We have penalized American manufacturers because of
environmental regulations they are required to comply with in this
country that are not imposed upon foreign manufacturers. And we have
seen the exploitation of workers and human rights in other countries
that allow goods to be produced at slave labor conditions and severely
undercut the market for those goods on the international economy.
{time} 2100
So I am here tonight with my friends to talk about why it is
important that, when we go forward from this point, looking at the
trade policies, not just for the current administration, but for future
administrations, no matter which party happens to occupy the White
House, it is important for us to look back on the historical role that
Congress has played in making sure that our trade policies reflect the
same basic values that made this country great in the first place. And
so that is why I am here to talk about how we, as a body, have to step
up to the plate and share our fair share of this responsibility moving
forward.
And to my friend from Maine, where I know these policies have had a
dramatic impact in a lot of different manufacturing and foreign good
sectors, I would like to yield back and ask about some of the
difficulties that his constituents have encountered in this same area.
Mr. MICHAUD. Well, I thank the gentleman for his discussion on this
issue. You brought up a very good point. You had mentioned fast track.
And I think what a lot of people don't realize is the fact that fast
track only allows Congress two options, to vote ``yes'' or ``no.'' We
have no options to amend this trade deal. We just have to vote ``yes''
or ``no.'' And we are abdicating our responsibilities by allowing fast
track to occur, which hopefully, with a new Congress and a new
direction, when we look at trade deals, we will be able to change fast
track so that we can have an opportunity to make sure that we do have
fair trade deals.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Were you serving in this body when fast track was
authorized?
Mr. MICHAUD. No, I was not. I was serving in the Maine legislature,
and I was opposed to it then. I am opposed to it now, especially when
you see what damage fast track has caused to this Nation, what it has
caused to our manufacturing. Maine alone, over the last 6 years or so,
we lost 23 percent of our manufacturing base alone in the State of
Maine. Certain labor market areas had unemployment rates over 30
percent. It has really devastated the State of Maine because of these
unfair trade deals, and it is all related to the unfair trade deals.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. We know from history that timber has always
played an important role in the economy of your State. How has the
timber industry been affected because of what is happening in the
global marketplace for timber and lumber sources from other areas that
don't have to comply with the same types of restrictions we talked
about earlier?
Mr. MICHAUD. As far as industries in the State of Maine, timber, the
paper industry have definitely been devastated the most when you look
at trade deals. We just actually had a few weeks ago Moosehead
Manufacturing which closed its doors because of the imports from China.
So it has had a negative impact primarily in the paper and in the
timber industries.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. One the things that we often don't talk about
when we talk about the loss of jobs overseas is the direct impact it
has on the communities where those jobs depart from. And one of the
things that we know, in talking about the sad story of Maytag in Iowa,
is that at the time Maytag still functioned with its corporate
headquarters in Newton, Iowa. They contributed almost $1 million a year
just in property taxes alone to the city of Newton and Jasper County.
That is just one small component of the many intangibles that we don't
talk about with these trade policies and how they impact the
communities that we represent over the long term.
One of the other things we know is that a lot of people who work in
those good-paying jobs take on leadership roles in their communities as
volunteers, as coaches, as mentors; and when they have to leave because
they don't have a place to work anymore, all of that intangible benefit
that contributes to the quality of life in a community leaves with
them. So I think that sometimes we focus too much on the pure economic
costs of these jobs that go overseas, and not enough on the real human
costs that goes along with them.
Mr. MICHAUD. You are absolutely right. As a matter of fact, when you
look at what is happening, a lot of municipalities, their primary
business has been hit because of unfair trade deals. It has that
rippling effect to other businesses within the community, but also the
family structure. When you look at the fact that when Mills filed
bankruptcy, and I have seen it in my own town, the divorce rate
actually goes up. The alcoholism goes up, and you are losing that
structure, and that is why we have to make sure that we do have fair
trade deals.
As we heard earlier today from Congressman Hare, he is not against
trade deals. He just wants to make sure that they are fair trade deals.
And that is
[[Page H2152]]
what we have to do as a Congress is to make sure that we do have fair
trade deals.
I am very pleased to see that a lot of Members, new Members of
Congress who have just come off the campaign trail, when they were
campaigning, they were talking to their constituents, and they heard a
lot about loss of manufacturing here in this country because of the
trade deals. So I am very pleased to see that we have such a large
group of freshmen Members on the floor this evening to talk about trade
deals and what they are doing to this country, or what they are doing
to their individual districts.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. I think a good example of that was one of the
first things I did after becoming a Member of Congress was look at
caucuses I could join that were going to be beneficial to the
constituents that I represent in my district. One of the caucuses I
joined was the Steel Caucus because there is a steel plant that has a
direct economic benefit to employees in my district.
And one of the things I was struck by at the meeting that I went to,
a breakfast meeting of the Steel Caucus, was it was bipartisan. There
were representatives of the steel industry, of labor, and everybody was
there to talk about the same problem, and that was cheap steel from
China flooding the U.S. and international markets.
And one of the things that came up during those discussions, again in
a bipartisan sense, was the myth of the so-called level playing field,
which is that U.S. manufacturers who play by the rules, provide good,
high-paying jobs with decent benefits, comply with environmental
regulations, treat their workers fairly, are not on a level playing
field when it comes to competing with Chinese competition and other
parts of the world economy because other countries do not play by the
same rules.
So I think one of the things that we need to be talking about here is
how we can work in a bipartisan spirit to develop those coalitions that
have a direct benefit for American workers, American manufacturers,
American employers and consumers of these products, because we all are
literally in this together.
Mr. MICHAUD. You are absolutely right. And actually speaking about in
it together, we have been joined by another freshman Member from
Pennsylvania, freshmen Member Jason Altmire, who has also taken an
interest and a leading role in the whole trade deal. I would like to
yield to Mr. Altmire for his comments.
Mr. ALTMIRE. I would like to thank the gentleman from Maine for his
leadership on this issue. This is a critical issue.
And you mentioned a lot of us are freshmen, like the gentleman from
Iowa, who are just coming off the campaign trail from a few months
back. And I come from a district in western Pennsylvania, just north of
Pittsburgh, and I have six counties going along, three of them go along
the Ohio line, and the other ones go just north of Pittsburgh. And I
would think you would be hard pressed to find a district in this
country that has seen more damage done by the global marketplace than
Pittsburgh over the past 30 or 40 years, and more recently over the
past dozen or 15 years since NAFTA was passed in 1993.
And just for some historical perspective for what I am going to talk
about, and I know you have mentioned it already, the country as a whole
lost three million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was agreed to in
1993. And that is one out of every six manufacturing jobs that existed
in this country at that time. I don't think we can draw any other
conclusion but that that was not beneficial to this country and had the
effect of job loss. I mean, it is self-evident.
Now, manufacturing jobs are disappearing in Pennsylvania as well. We
can trace about 100,000 jobs lost in Pennsylvania as a direct result of
NAFTA. And of course when you get into indirect result, that number is
much higher.
Now, there has been a loss of 210,000 manufacturing jobs total, 24
percent decrease in the State of Pennsylvania over just the past 6
years. That is total. That is not just NAFTA. That is all these trade
agreements. So we have lost a quarter of our manufacturing jobs in just
the past 6 years.
Now, in my district just last week, this has unfortunate significance
that just last week we lost 85 workers from Wheatland Tube, a large
manufacturing plant in my district; 85 workers were released on
February 26. And this is just the latest in a series of downsizing that
has taken place there.
And I would put in a mention of Congressman Tim Ryan from Youngstown,
who is very involved in this issue as well. And he came over to
Wheatland Tube with me during the campaign, and we met with some of the
workers and the leadership there at that time, and they expressed their
concerns about China and their inability to compete in a fair way with
what is happening in China. And here we see only a few months later
that 85 workers have now lost their jobs as a result of what is
happening.
And I would mention this quote from the vice president from Wheatland
Tube last week. He said, ``We are not seeing relief from Chinese
imports, and we are not going to sit around and wait for that relief.
We need to right-size the company.'' And this is just one example.
Again, I have six counties in western Pennsylvania, and we are seeing
this certainly all over the district and all over western Pennsylvania.
But right there at Wheatland Tube, unfortunately, it hit home just last
week.
Now, the onslaught of foreign subsidized goods that are illegally
dumped in the U.S. is just one of the many problems that we are seeing
that has not been addressed by this administration. And certainly these
trade agreements are doing nothing about this. And the administration
that has put forward CAFTA and some of the other more recent trade
agreements continues down the same path.
And I can tell you that, with the possible exception of health care,
there was no issue over the 18 months I spent on the campaign trail
that came up more often and was of greater concern than these trade
agreements in western Pennsylvania. So the American people have spoken
on this issue. I can tell you, for sure, they spoke in my district, and
I know they spoke in Mr. Braley's district. And we are going to hear
from Congresswoman Sutton later and Mr. Ellison as well.
I think this is an issue whose time has come. It cannot be ignored
any longer. These trade agreements have been detrimental to America.
And none of us are saying we should bury our heads in the sand and
ignore the global marketplace. What we are saying, as Mr. Hare
eloquently put it earlier, is that we need to have trade agreements
that represent fair trade. And fair trade means having the trading
partner make some effort, at least an effort, to come into compliance
with environmental laws, with workers' rights, certainly child labor
laws. These are things that have been completely left out of these
trade agreements. So we find ourselves just giving away the store and
shipping those jobs overseas, as Dr. Kagen's chart so eloquently
illustrated.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. ALTMIRE. I would.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania has a
fondness for college football so I am going to root this question in
that. One of the great football players at Iowa State University when I
attended there in the mid-to-late 70s was a gentleman named Tom
Perticone from Clareton, Pennsylvania. And while Tom was playing
football at Iowa State, the movie ``Deer Hunter'' was very popular,
which was filmed in and around Pittsburgh general area, and also near
Clareton. And one of the things that film depicted so well was the
whole culture of the community where a life's history has been devoted
to a particular industry and how everything revolves around it. And we
have seen that in my home community of Waterloo, Iowa, near the old
Rath Packing Company, where a virtual community of businesses and
services formed around the factory, and everyone's lives were tied up
in that.
And I was hoping that you might be able to shed some light on the
very real, personal toll on the culture of those communities in your
district that have seen this dramatic shift, and how employment is
available to the people who graduate from high school and don't have
the same opportunities they did 15 years ago.
[[Page H2153]]
Mr. ALTMIRE. Well, in a word, it has been devastating, and we have
seen the results. I talked about Wheatland Tube. I grew up about 100
miles from that plant, in a river town that was across from a big
Allegheny Ludlam plant, which is where all the families worked. If you
lived in that town, that is where you worked. And, unfortunately,
things have not gone so well over the past couple of decades, both at
that plant and another Allegheny Ludlam plant that I have in my
district, and much of it has to do with these foreign trade issues. And
as a result, now, when you travel through these communities, they used
to be so vibrant and had a downtown that you could go through and it
was hustle and bustle and there was activity. A lot of them now are
ghost towns because we have seen the impact and the job loss that has
resulted from the downfall of the steel industry 20 and 30 years ago,
but more recently, the other heavy manufacturing that has been shipped
overseas.
{time} 2115
So it has been devastating to these communities, and you would only
need to take one drive through much of my district to see the impact,
because you can see the remnants of some of those plants. In many
cases, they have been razed, and it is a brownfield site. But you can
see the difference, and you can imagine what it used to be like 30 and
40 years ago and, in many cases, more recently.
I was just going to wrap up my portion by talking about what is
coming next before us. And, again, none of us oppose the idea of trade.
Fair trade is beneficial to both parties by definition. That is what we
are talking about. But as the administration puts forward the Peruvian
Trade Agreement, Colombia, Panama, and certainly fast track renewal,
which the gentleman from Maine was talking about, we need to consider
the fact that Congress, Representatives of the people, need to play an
active role in these trade agreements. And, unfortunately, that has not
been the case, which is why we have ended up with such one-sided
agreement. So, as we consider those issues with Peru and Colombia and
Panama and Presidential fast-track authority, I for one am going to
support the working Americans of this country for fair trade practices.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
I really appreciate your willingness to come to the floor this
evening. I know you care deeply about this issue, where it has affected
your district dramatically, and your willingness to speak up for the
working men and women and businesses here in this country to make sure
that they have a fair shake at these trade deals. So thank you for your
leadership. I look forward to working with you as we move forward to
deal with these issues.
Now I would like to recognize a gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Ellison), who is also a member of the freshmen class, but he brings a
uniqueness from the State of Minnesota as far as the effect that these
unfair trade deals have had on the State of Minnesota and the
businesses and the working people within Minnesota.
I yield to the Representative from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the Member from Maine for his
excellent leadership, looking out for the hard-working people of this
whole United States.
It is true, I am honored to come from the Fifth Congressional
District of Minnesota, but as I stand before you tonight, Mr. Speaker,
I am honored to associate myself with the Member from Maine, with the
Member from Ohio and Pennsylvania, because working people all over
America need a fair trade and balanced trade situation. We can no
longer abide doing trade deals which essentially support environmental
policies that degrade other nations, that degrade workers in other
nations, and that degrade human rights in other nations, and then
thereby give other nations a competitive advantage over us because of
the exploitation and ignoring important environmental regulations. And
it is all very important because we need leadership tonight, Mr.
Speaker, leadership which is willing to stand up and be counted for the
American people, leadership which will not go with the wind but will
actually change the wind. That is the leadership we need at this time.
Let me say that we need a trade policy that does three things,
basically: respects workers' rights and their dignity; protects our
fragile environment; and upholds basic human rights. Today's trade
policies in America do only a few of those things but very little of
what we need.
What we see is a continual erosion at the very heart of America: the
middle class. It started first with the elimination of our
manufacturing jobs. And I now represent Minnesota, the Fifth District
of Minnesota, but I started life out in Detroit, where I saw plants
closing on a daily, weekly basis, and I saw jobs outsourced on a weekly
basis. But now what we see is a situation in Minnesota where that has
taken hold and we see jobs leaving left, right and center, and it has
got to stop.
The global economy has evolved to a large extent and is reminiscent
today of the Robber Baron era, where huge transnational companies scour
the planet for the cheapest, most exploitable labor and the most lax
environmental standards. We have the opportunity to change that in
Congress, and we must change it.
But what kind of global economy do we want? The answer to that
question must be determined and will be determined to a large extent by
the rules incorporated in free trade agreements that define so much of
the global economy. By what we decide in this Chamber, we will
determine the shape of the global economy.
If we want sweatshops in the global economy and the continued erosion
of our middle class, we could continue negotiating and passing trade
deals with no protection for workers or the environment. Trade deals
that threaten the prevailing wage laws. Trade deals that could force us
to privatize public services.
But if we truly believe in a global economy that lifts the living
standards at home and around the globe, one that seriously values the
environment on which all life depends, then what we must do is we must
do better. If we want a better global economy that lifts standards
everywhere, we need to change our approach to trade agreements as we
enter into this fast-track arena coming up.
First, we need to put an end to the fast-track trade negotiating
procedure which previous Congresses have ceded to the Executive branch.
The Founding Fathers wisely delegated that role exclusively to the
branch of government closest to the people: the Congress. And we have
the perfect opportunity to take back our constitutional responsibility
by allowing fast-track promotion authority to expire in June. We can
and will put forward a different, more humane method of negotiating
international trade agreements, but it is time for fast track to die a
rightful death.
Secondly, we must stop passing more trade deals designed to spread
the sweatshop model of the global economy. It has become clear that
NAFTA, after 13 years of real-life experience, has not worked. It has
cost us a million manufacturing jobs, left Mexican workers without
rights and still working for wages far below the Mexican poverty level.
It has displaced more than 1.5 million Mexican farm families, leaving
many with no alternative but to migrate north for a better life.
The same applies to CAFTA and the pending Peru and Colombia ``free''
trade agreements. Colombia is distinguished by being a country where
trade unionists are assassinated more than in any other nation in the
world.
Instead, we can construct a new global economy built on generosity
and inclusivity; one that raises living standards and supports the vast
and growing global middle class. But we can only do it by casting off
the failed policies of recent decades and by building the middle class.
The choice is ours. The choice is clear. It is time to reclaim
Congress's free trade authority and our country's, and the world's
future.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.
And we will work closely with you as we move forward to make sure
that what trade deals we do pass in this Congress are fair trade deals.
I want to thank you very much for your leadership and interest in this
area.
Mr. ELLISON. Fair trade.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield to an individual
[[Page H2154]]
who is also a member of the freshmen class but an individual who
definitely has done a yeoperson's job in dealing with this trade issue.
She knows the trade issues inside out. She has been a leader. She has
organized the freshmen class to send a letter to the chairman of the
Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, because of the concerns about
trade.
And, Ms. Sutton, I want to really thank you from the bottom of my
heart for what you bring to this whole debate as we debate the trade
deals, and I look forward to working with you over this Congress to
move forward to make sure we have fair trade deals.
So, Mr. Speaker, I now yield to Ms. Sutton.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
those kind remarks and for yielding.
I thank you also not just for your leadership on behalf of the
Members here, but I thank you for your leadership on this issue for the
people that I represent, the good and fine folks of Northeast Ohio,
from Lorraine to Akron to Barberton. This is so meaningful and so
important, what we are doing here tonight and what we need to do, this
Congress, to ensure that they have a better chance in this world.
It is crystal clear, not just from the discussion tonight but from
what we see when we go home to our districts and we look across
America, that our trade policies are not benefiting America's workers
and America's businesses as they should. And there is a lot of angst
and anger out there. People are really concerned.
The trade policies don't work for the average folks, but they also
don't work, and I have to emphasize this, for American businesses as
they should.
Working families in my congressional district in the State of Ohio
and our Nation continue to face mounting job losses and a tumultuous
economy. We have heard the numbers before, but they bear repeating.
Since 2000, we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs nationally.
And, unfortunately, 200,000 of those jobs have been from my home State
of Ohio.
Now, it is clear that Congress needs to act. When things aren't
working, we should change direction. And that is why I am so proud of
these new Members whom we have had the opportunity to hear from today
and the leadership that they are exhibiting to take this Congress and
this country into a direction that will work for the American people.
We can't stand idly by and watch our jobs go overseas and our families
suffer at home and our trade deficits soar.
I want to point out that I, like so many of the others who have
spoken before, feel it is very important to say I am not opposed to
trade. You know, sometimes when we start having discussions like this,
people try to pit you into one category or another. They like to say
you are either for trade or you are a protectionist.
Well, this is not a question about protectionism versus trade. This
is a question about the rules of trade, and this is a question about
what rules we think should be in a new trade model that will allow for
trade to be engaged in fully and fairly by this country but require
that others play by the same rules.
Trade can benefit American businesses and workers, and it can be a
tool to help developing countries that are looking to access our
markets. I hold out hope, and I hope it bears out, that I will have the
opportunity in this Congress to vote for a trade agreement that lifts
up our working families at home and abroad; a trade agreement that
protects our environment at home and abroad; and a trade agreement that
has strong and enforceable provisions, ensuring that all partners are
playing by the same rules.
Now, we have heard some discussion about fast track already this
evening. And my colleague Representative Braley and Congressman
Michaud, you have identified this as such a critical issue coming up
very quickly, set to expire in June. And I can tell you that, on behalf
of those I represent in Northeast Ohio, I, for one, will not be
supporting its renewal.
Fast track has been a raw deal for many American workers and
businesses. Fast track takes away the accountability and oversight that
Congress has been given under the Constitution to deal with trade. And,
frankly, it has left us in a position with misguided and downright
shameful trade policies that we have today.
If we had not had fast track, Congress could have been in a place to
play a significant role in shaping the trade agreements while it still
might have made a difference. The problem with fast track is, by the
time it gets here, all we get to do is say whether we are going to vote
``yes'' or ``no'' for what is a bad trade deal.
We need to move in a new direction on trade. It is a moral
imperative, and our fight begins with ending fast track. But there are
other concerns that we have talked about on the trade horizon, such as
the deals with Peru and Colombia and Panama. And these agreements, they
have been modeled after the same flawed model that NAFTA gave us. And
NAFTA was responsible for 50,000 jobs losses in Ohio. It is no longer
hypothetical. We don't have to wonder what is going to happen with
NAFTA. NAFTA has been a disaster for the people I represent and for
this country.
So while we continue to get these harmful trade agreements forced
down our throats, we have failed to address many of the trade problems
we face with China and Japan and Korea and others. And while our trade
deficits soar to the tune of a record $800 billion, which I have to
tell you is not a record we should be happy with, with these nations,
our wages in our Nation stagnate and hundreds of thousands of jobs have
been displaced.
What is it about these failed trade policies that those who continue
to push them don't understand? This is not acceptable, and we cannot
allow this race to the bottom to continue.
{time} 2130
I thank the gentleman very much for his leadership. I thank you on
behalf of those I represent. I will continue to work with you as much
as I possibly can to develop a new trade model, one that will work for
American workers and businesses.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady. You are absolutely
right, it is these flawed models that continue to come up after the
NAFTA model and all these other trade deals. Until you change that
flawed model, we are still going to get these bad trade deals
continuing.
You mentioned the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I don't think there
is any fix for this agreement. I think it is highly offensive that the
Bush administration would even negotiate with a country that is
infamous for the highest rate of trade unionist assassinations. More
than 2,000 labor union activists have been murdered in Colombia since
1990; 60 assassinated in 2006 alone. I think that is just
unconscionable.
I agree with Congressman Sandy Levin when he says that we have to
look at these flawed models that are out there. These side agreements
that people are talking about, they are not going to work. They don't
have the force of law.
I think we definitely have a long ways to go before we have trade
deals that I can support. And with the freshman class we currently have
under your great, fantastic leadership, I applaud them, and encourage
that each and every one of you continue to speak out on this issue,
because it is an issue that is important to the American people, it is
an issue that is important to our businesses, workers in this country,
but it is also an issue that is very important when you look at our
security and immigration.
When we heard the NAFTA discussion, when they passed NAFTA, we were
encouraged; I was not here, but Members were encouraged to vote for it
because it would help with the illegal immigration problem with Mexico.
The problem has not been solved. It has gotten worse because the NAFTA
agreement has not worked the way it was supposed to work.
So I look forward to working with you and the rest of the freshman
class, along with other colleagues who are interested in this trade
deal.
Speaking about other colleagues, another gentlelady from Ohio as
well, Congresswoman Kaptur, who has also been a strong leader in the
trade debate over the past 5 years that I have been here, and she has
been a tremendous advocate for making sure that we have fair trade
deals, I see she has some charts up there with a lot of red
[[Page H2155]]
ink. I assume that is probably the trade deficit that she is going to
talk about.
I yield to the gentlelady.
Ms. KAPTUR. Congressman Michaud, Congresswoman Sutton and Congressman
Braley, I wanted to come to the floor tonight and say it is so
wonderful to have you here in this beloved House, to try to course
correct on a direction that the United States has been heading in the
wrong direction now for over two decades. And with the new energy that
you represent and the new leadership, I have no doubt that when fast
track comes up for reauthorization later this year, we are going to
stop it dead in its tracks and begin turning our country around again.
I just wanted to run to the floor just for a couple of minutes to put
some notes in the Record and to say that for 23 years Congress has
really doled out to the executive branch our trade-making authority
under Article I, section 8.
If you go back to 1975 when fast track was first passed, the United
States had trade balances up until then for almost the entirety of our
history. Then as you look at each succeeding agreement, whether you go
to 1993 and NAFTA, we were already amassing trade deficits after the
first fast track was passed back in the seventies.
Then when PNTR with China was passed, plus NAFTA, plus all the other
agreements that were signed, we moved into the most historic deficits
represented by the lost jobs that Congresswoman Sutton talked about,
that Congressman Braley talked about, Congressman Michaud you talked
about and personally lived through.
So we have seen real wages stagnant with those jobs lost. We have
seen our jobs move overseas to the lowest-wage countries in the world,
the most undemocratic. We have seen child labor flourish. We have seen
bonded labor come back into our country as a result. We have global
warming taking hold as our environmental regulations are really
overturned under agreements like NAFTA. Illegal immigrants stream
across our borders because they are treated like they have no value in
their home countries. Our trade deficit continues to soar, and the drug
trade locks in heavily.
So I wanted to come down tonight and present some of these figures
and say that there is a pattern to history now. You are like the second
wave. You are coming in here. Those of us who fought so hard against
NAFTA in 1993, those of us who tried so hard to course-correct, we
never had the votes. Unfortunately, it was so close; it was so very
close. But people hadn't lived the washout. You now represent places
that have experienced the results of this.
So we look forward to this coming vote this summer. It is such a joy
to have you here, and I just wanted to thank you for your really
determined leadership and for the people who voted you here so that you
could come to Washington and make a difference. We so very, very much
need your voices here.
When Fast Track expires at the end of June this year, Congress can
reclaim our authority granted by Article 1 Section 8 of the
Constitution ``to regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' For 23
years, Congress and the working class watched the executive branch
commandeer U.S. trade policy. We also saw real wages stagnate, American
jobs move overseas, child labor flourish, global warming take hold,
illegal immigrants stream across our borders, our trade deficit soar,
and the drug trade thrive.
Like many of us here, I receive thousands of letters, phone calls,
and e-mails from my constituents asking me to take action on these
important issues.
While there is no one cause for any of these problems, Congress
cannot ignore how U.S. trade policy impacts the full range of issues
affecting Americans and the world. Congress must respond to the
American people who demand action from us.
Congress has yielded enough power to the executive branch. If we
renew Fast Track and continue to cede our Constitutionally-granted
authority, we will only render ourselves more helpless in the face of a
broken immigration system, economic instability, an environmental
crisis, and a burgeoning drug trade.
Our previous trade agreements may not have been the sole causes of
these emergencies, but trade policy is the key to solving them.
Congress needs to examine the root causes of our immigration problem
and the exploitation of workers across the Americas. When the leaders
of U.S., Mexico, and Canada signed NAFTA 14 years ago, they turned
their backs on working men and women across the continent. The
agreement continues to chip away at the U.S. economy, leaving millions
jobless and accumulating a staggering and growing trade deficit with
Mexico, now totaling a record $64.1 billion for 2006. At the same time,
NAFTA ravaged the Mexican economy and destroyed the farming and
agricultural sectors. This so-called ``free trade'' agreement has
prompted hundreds of thousands of Mexicans to look for an escape from
their worsening destitute circumstances to the U.S., and in doing so
they risk their lives, the unity of their families and their futures.
U.S. trade policy upsets more than just our immigration crisis. Our
faltering trade policy has also contributed to the global environmental
emergency. When the Bush Administration entered into CAFTA, they did so
with countries which rarely enforce their already limited environmental
policies. Many of my constituents have already contacted me about the
devastating environmental consequences of the Peru Free Trade
Agreement. How can Congress fight global warming in the U.S. while
allowing our trade rivals to destroy the rain forests and retain lax
emissions standards? We must use trade as a tool to protect the
environment, not to pillage it.
Lopsided flawed trade agreements weaken our economy. Since NAFTA's
passage, over one million U.S. jobs were sucked into Mexico. Because of
PNTR, more than 1.5 million jobs shipped out to China. After two
centuries of trade surpluses, NAFTA ushered in an era of soaring trade
deficits, even after proponents promised us bigger surpluses.
More recently, President Bush's trade policy in particular has caused
more damage to our trade accounts. The trade deficit has climbed to
record numbers each year since he took office in 2001. From $362
billion his first year to a whopping $763.6 billion last year, this
President has been selling the U.S. to the highest foreign bidders.
Our constituents are calling Congress to action. Without the
authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, Congress cannot
effectively respond to these crises.
Congress must stand for free trade among free people, and ensure that
all Americans have access to middle class jobs at middle class wages
with health and retirement benefits that cannot be rescinded. We must
oppose Fast Track, reclaim our negotiating authority from the executive
branch, and answer the pleas of the American people.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, we are headed on a collision course. If you
look at our budgetary deficit, we have the largest budgetary deficit in
our history. The debt limit was increased to $9 trillion. We have the
largest trade deficit in our history, which continues to rise because
of these unfair trade deals. And if Congress does not get a handle on
both the budgetary deficit and our trade deficit, we will no longer be
the superpower that we are today.
When you look at our budgetary deficit, over 45 percent of that is
owned by foreigners, China being one of them. If you look at our trade
deficit with China, we saw charts earlier where it is skyrocketing.
When I hear my colleagues talk about the fact that we are going to
put trade assistance funding in there so that we can retrain workers,
they don't want trade adjustment assistance. They want their jobs. That
is very important for them.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further on that
point, recently, about a week ago, Hershey Chocolate announced it was
going to move its operations out of Pennsylvania to Mexico. They have
already been testing those Hershey Kisses, those big ones they are
making down there now and the taste has changed. I am thinking, where
is the old Hershey bar that used to taste so good?
You look at all the jobs in Pennsylvania associated with all the
dairying that goes on and then the processing. They say that they are
going to save the tourist center, but it won't be real any more,
because the jobs won't be there, both in the plant itself and in the
countryside that provides the raw product into Hershey.
So you ask, why are we allowing ourselves to be hollowed out like
this? Wall Street is really in a pitched battle with Main Street across
this country, and we have to fight here to save those middle-class
jobs.
Mr. MICHAUD. Absolutely. Congresswoman Sutton mentioned earlier the
fact this is not just a workers' issue; it is a business issue. The
United States Business and Industry Council has been very supportive,
very helpful with the Kaptur trade deal. They are going to be very
helpful I think when you look at fast track and other areas. So this
isn't
[[Page H2156]]
just working people issues; it is business issues. A lot of people try
to put workers against business. It is not that issue at all. It is
these unfair trade deals.
I would like to ask Congresswoman Sutton a question, if I might. How
would you address this issue: We hear all kinds of times the issue, you
are a protectionist. What is your response to that?
Ms. SUTTON. Well, again, this is the way those who like what is going
on with our trade deals, and those would be more or less the
multinational companies who are very involved in helping to push them,
whenever we start talking about this and the real impact and the real
effects, they like to call you names like protectionist.
That is how they shut the debate down; but we can't allow that to
happen, because, again, this is not a question of protectionism versus
trade. It is a question about what are the rules of trade going to be.
We just have to keep saying that, because there are going to be
voices out there that would like people to believe otherwise. But all
we are talking about is what kind of rules of trade do we believe
should be engaged in.
Mr. MICHAUD. That is very good. I know we are running out of time. I
do want to thank you, Congresswoman Sutton and Congresswoman Kaptur,
for your leadership in this role, and I really appreciate the hard work
that everyone is doing on this issue, especially our freshman class.
As Ms. Kaptur had mentioned, the freshman class has really come
forward and really taken on this issue, taken an interest in this
issue, I think primarily because you just came off the campaign trail.
You heard what people were talking about out there. It is important for
Members who have been here for a while to listen to you as freshman
Members because you definitely have a lot to talk about when it comes
to this trade issue.
We have seen it firsthand. As I mentioned earlier, I worked at the
mill for over 28 years, and I have seen firsthand what NAFTA has done
to my town, my community, to individuals who worked in the mill.
So I want to thank each and every one of you for taking an interest
in this very important issue.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker: I am proud to join many of my House
colleagues today to present a strong voice in opposition to renewing
Fast Track trade negotiating authority in any way, shape or form.
Fast Track allows the President to negotiate trade agreements without
input from Congress. In addition, Congress is prohibited from amending
any trade agreements reached under Fast Track authority.
Cynically repackaged as ``trade promotion authority'' in 2002, under
President Bush's watch, Fast Track has been utilized to unjustifiable
ends. Wages are flat, our trade deficit has skyrocketed and good-paying
manufacturing jobs have been lost by the thousands.
Increased imports from low-paid workers abroad, combined with threats
made to workers by companies to move operations overseas, drive
American workers' wages down. Through the 1950s and 1960s, the American
middle-class grew and prospered. In 1973, the average U.S. worker made
$16.06 an hour. Today, after adjusting for inflation, that same worker
would make only $16.11 per hour.
In stark contrast to hourly wages, average U.S. worker productivity
has nearly doubled over the same period. Clearly, the divide in America
between the ``haves'' and ``have-nots'' is growing, and the richest
few, along with multi-national corporations, are the big winners under
our nation's flawed trade policy.
Up until 1973, the U.S. experienced relatively balanced trade, with
small trade surpluses being the norm ($1.9 billion surplus in 1973).
Since Fast Track was granted in 1974, the U.S. had a trade surplus in
just one year (1975). Now, in 2006, our nation's trade deficit has
skyrocketed to over $760 billion.
Our trade deficit has more than doubled since President Bush took
office. For 2001, our trade deficit was $362 billion. Last year, our
trade deficit reached yet another new record high at $764 billion.
Since WWII, good paying manufacturing jobs have been the driving
force behind our nation's robust middle class allowing families to own
homes, send their children to college and gain access to quality,
affordable healthcare.
Since President Bush took office, the U.S. has lost 3 million
manufacturing jobs. Michigan alone has lost 213,000 manufacturing jobs,
or about one-quarter of the state's manufacturing jobs.
My record is clear. I voted against the Trade Act of 2002, which
mistakenly granted this Administration ``trade promotion authority.''
Now, it is time for Congress to put the brakes on the Bush
Administration's failed trade policies and come to our senses to
realize the damage done. First, we must not make matters worse.
Congress should reject the pending free trade agreements with Peru,
Colombia and Panama. My colleagues should not be misled. Fast track
trade negotiating authority is not required to negotiate or approve
free trade agreements.
Second, we need serious, thoughtful review of our nation's trade
policies and their impact on wages, jobs and our trade balance. Pitting
American industries against one another, political gamesmanship, and
manipulation and sloganeering must come to an end so that Congress and
the Administration should get down to business.
The United States is a world leader, and we must enact trade policies
that truly encourage positive standards and quality of life for both
the United States and our foreign partners. Reject renewal of Fast
Track trade negotiation authority, so we can get back to sensible and
fair trade policy.
____________________