[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5603-H5609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
U.S. TRADE AGREEMENTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the Speaker for affording me this opportunity.
And to the new Democratic coalition, to have an opportunity to speak a
few moments on the new template that has been created as we move
forward on trade here in the House of Representatives.
I want to take this opportunity again to applaud the Chair of the
Ways and Means Committee, my chairman, Mr. Rangel, as well as chair of
the Subcommittee on Trade, Mr. Levin, as well as the Speaker of the
House, Nancy Pelosi, and the entire Democratic leadership for what I
believe was forcing the Bush administration to agree to a framework
that will encompass all future trade agreements, a framework that will
ensure that our trade pacts with other nations respect labor, both here
in the United States and abroad; that respect the environment both here
and abroad; and respect our Nation's future economic success. And
specifically, the new Democratic majority achieved a long sought-after
goal that our trade agreements will include enforceable labor and
environmental standards.
I think it is incredible that our caucus, that charged our leadership
and Mr. Rangel with the authority to negotiate on behalf of our caucus
with the administration, with the USTR, the principles that we laid out
for him and for our leadership. And what is remarkable is the success
that Mr. Rangel and our other leaders met in those negotiations.
This new framework, this new template, as I said before, illustrates
how Democrats, in response to public demands to work in a bipartisan
way, how we were able to achieve our goals by working cooperatively
with Republicans without compromising what we stand for as Democrats--
and that, in large contrast to the stalemates that we saw in recent
past Congresses.
I think it is a new day in many respects for the Ways and Means
Committee and for the House of Representatives. I hope it goes beyond
this new template for fair and free trade agreements: that this can be
used as an example in other areas; that we can hopefully work in a more
bipartisan spirit, not always agreeing, not always getting along, but
working in the spirit of cooperation on behalf of all our constituents,
be that Democrat, Republican or Independent.
This new trade policy achieves the core Democratic principles and
goes far beyond the provisions in any previous free trade agreement.
All pending free trade agreements will be amended to incorporate key
Democratic priorities and will be fully enforceable. Key demands that
were met are fundamental labor and environmental protections included
in trade agreements that are fully enforceable.
I think it is important to note here, after years of opposition, this
administration and the former Republican-controlled Congress agreed to
include in the text of the agreement the five ILO worker rights: first,
the right to association. Secondly, the right to collectively bargain.
It also prohibits child labor. It prohibits slave labor. It prohibits
discrimination. For the first time, environmental standards cannot be
lowered, and will be fully enforceable in free trade agreements going
forward.
The agreement upon framework expands access to life-saving medicines
in developing countries as well. Trade agreements with South Korea and
Colombia present additional and distinct obstacles that need to be
addressed. This is a framework; it is not carte blanche for every free
trade agreement moving forward.
The framework is about leveling the playing field for America's
workers, for our farmers and businesses, and promoting a trade policy
that advances U.S. economic interests around the world, but also
advances what we stand for as Americans.
Democrats will continue to work across the aisle to make sure our
country stays in the forefront of this globalizing economy and this
globalizing world. Working across the aisle, Democrats will educate our
youth and upgrade worker skills on the job, and stimulate science,
education and research as we move forward.
Democrats are committed to moving beyond the current trade adjustment
assistance, TAA system, to provide meaningful support, training and
revitalization programs for entire communities which have been hurt by
the effects of trade and technology. This bipartisan framework will
keep America as a global economic leader and a champion for the
principles Americans all believe in.
I am so happy to be joined this evening by a fellow member of the New
Democratic Coalition, Allyson Schwartz from Philadelphia, who would
also like to share her thoughts about this new template that we have
been able to create here in the House of Representatives.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. I thank Congressman Joe Crowley from New York, who has
been a leader in the New Democratic Coalition. He has really been, as a
member of both the coalition and of the Ways and Means Committee, as I
am, really out front and really working to make sure that we are as
economically competitive as we need to be in this country. And that
means all American workers being given new opportunities. And that
really does involve making sure that we get these trade agreements
right.
So I want to thank the Congressman, and thank him for asking me to
join him this evening.
What I want to do is to add my words, some of them will be similar, I
[[Page H5604]]
share some of the same feelings you do, about how important it is for
us as new Democrats to participate and to push to make sure that we get
trade policies in this country that, in fact, are committed to
advancing sustainable and responsible trade between ourselves and the
rest of the world.
We recognize that this is a new day in the way we work. It is a
global marketplace. We need to recognize that, we need to recognize
these new marketplaces.
I, too, want to recognize our leadership on the Democratic side,
Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rangel and Sander Levin, who really are
absolutely committed to doing these trade agreements differently and
bringing a Democratic perspective to some of the goals and ambitions
that we have for our constituents and for the American people to really
try and do things differently.
{time} 2015
But let me also say that I understand very clearly, as I think all of
us do here in Congress, that the new global economy has created real
challenges for American businesses, for American workers, for American
consumers and for American families, and that we need to do things
differently in the 21st century. We need to recognize the competition
that we are in, and we need to do a number of different things. Trade
agreements are one piece of what we have to do, and do them in a way
that recognizes how difficult this issue is for so many Americans. But
it is not all we are going to do.
So we are going to talk specifically about trade this evening, but I
think as you started to speak to towards the ends of our remarks, the
fact is as New Democrats, and I hope for all of us in Congress, we need
to work together to make sure that Americans are well prepared for the
jobs of the 21st century, and that means investing in education,
demanding more from our educational systems, demanding access to higher
education and job training. It means making sure that people displaced
by globalization, by the changing marketplace, have access to
continuing education and job training, and that they are trained for
jobs that are family-sustaining, that help them be able to do all they
want to do for their families, and that we help American businesses be
as innovative and as technologically advanced as they possibly can.
Our support as New Democrats for research and development, for ways
and means, for tax credits that help advance the use of technology in
our businesses and to make sure that we are competitive are all things
that we need to do, in addition to making sure that our trade policies
are really going to work for American businesses and American workers.
You went into some detail, and I think that was important, but let me
certainly say that what we have done and what has been put forward by
Chairman Rangel and by Congressman Sandy Levin really is an enormous
change over the agreements that we have seen in the last 6 years in
particular. I want to say I am very proud of the fact that they held
really firmly on putting forward, making sure that we and other nations
really meet international labor standards. They were missing in our
trade agreements.
If we are going to bring up the standards of workers in other
countries, if we are going to be able to compete with workers and
businesses in other countries, we need to have them make a commitment
to those ILO standards, to the international labor standards.
We also stood firmly on making sure we were going to demand that
other nations work on environmental protections. That means when we are
dealing with Peru, we are talking about logging and making sure that
they meet commitments.
Of course, we will need to make sure on an ongoing basis that
language that is written in these trade agreements is enforced. It does
not help us to write good language, although that is the first step; we
must make sure there is an enforcement. I think many Democrats, and I
hope that it is true for all of us, are concerned about the lack of
enforcement that has gone on in the last 6 years. I myself have raised
some of those questions in the Ways and Means Committee hearings.
So we are not finished by any means, even by speaking tonight. This
is a broad template. We are referring to it as a new trade policy for
America. But we feel very strongly, I certainly do, that we have made
an enormous step forward here in making sure of the trade agreements,
and we expect the template to be first used in our pending agreements
with Panama and Peru.
There are obstacles and other issues that have to be dealt with in
our trade agreements. This is just part of the special ones that often
have to be dealt with. They certainly will be with Colombia, with South
Korea, that are not spoken to in this template that will be very
specific.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
May 22, 2007--On Page H5604 the following appeared: with North
Korea, that are not
The online version should be corrected to read: with South
Korea, that are not
========================= END NOTE =========================
But the fact that this framework requires and demands that we will
see higher labor standards in other countries, that we will see higher
environmental standards, that we will see a commitment to really
meeting these international standards, is a commitment that I think we
have made to American workers. As I say, it is a piece of helping to
make sure that American businesses and American workers can meet the
challenges of the 21st century.
We will continue to, I certainly will, make sure that we do
everything we can to make sure our workers are well-trained and
prepared for the jobs of the next century, that those jobs are here in
America, that we can complete in an international global marketplace.
This is really our responsibility in Congress is to be able to say
what we expect of these trade agreements, to put language in those
trade agreements. But the fact that we can work with this
administration; you know, it has been hard to work with this
administration on a lot of issues. The fact is this has been a
breakthrough on trade.
The administration wants to see these trade agreements, but we
weren't willing to relent without these high standards on labor and on
the environment, and, again, I am going to add on enforcement.
I will say also that we fully expect that the work that we are going
to do on education and on research and development and on innovation
really is going to, I hope, put ourselves forward in making sure that
we are going to be as competitive; that we add the work we are going to
do on energy, bringing down the cost of energy; that we can add what we
hope to do on health care and bringing down the cost of health care for
our businesses and creating more access to health care.
We are really looking long term, because this is long term, in making
sure that America continues to be the leading industrialized Nation in
the world, that our people live at the highest standards, and that they
can compete in a global marketplace in a way that we have always been
proud of American products, and we will always be, and that we will, in
fact, be able to make sure that our workers have the access to jobs,
and that around the world we see all of the economies grow and expand
and create new markets for us as well.
So I yield back. I will be happy to go into, as I know Mr. Crowley
will be, into some of the specifics about some of these standards. But,
really, I think what we want to do tonight is say as Democrats, we
believe in the American worker. We believe in American business. We
know we can compete. We need fair trade agreements that are enforced by
this administration, and I know we will stay right on it to make sure
that happens.
Mr. CROWLEY. One of the things that I think is remarkable about the
template is that this is the base. This is not the ceiling. This is
where we start from. And it is also precedent-setting. We have been
asking, I wouldn't say begging, but we have been pleading with the
other side to include these ILO declarations for many, many, many years
now.
Unless you have served in the House for the past few years, you may
not have the same appreciation for the dysfunctionality of the Ways and
Means Committee and how it was or was not working in the past. It was
either you take the agreement and you vote for it, or you don't. That
is not a way, I think, to build bipartisanship. That is not a way to
build consensus on any issue, let alone an issue that is as contentious
as trade is for both Democrats and Republicans.
I think the American people, Allison, I think you will agree, want to
see us
[[Page H5605]]
working together. It doesn't mean we always have to agree on
everything, but they want to see us working together and crafting a
template like this, that there is a give and take on all sides. I think
when anyone enters into negotiation on behalf of any party, the
understanding is there will be some give and take.
There will be some who are not entirely happy with every aspect of an
agreement, but I think on the whole, we have to look at what Mr. Rangel
and Mr. Levin have been able to craft here and understand that just
about everything we wanted as Democrats is in this template.
It doesn't mean that we will all, either Democrat or Republican,
support all of the free trade agreements moving forward, but it is the
floor and not the ceiling, and it gives us a great place, I think, to
start.
One thing to also recount is that many of the nations that we have
talked to, whether it was Peru or Panama or even Colombia, have said
they have no problem with us including these provisions. They had no
problem if the former Congresses would have included them, but they
didn't include them.
Under this new Congress, this new Democratically controlled House and
Senate, we said, no more. It will no longer be the way it used to be.
It will no longer be a rubber stamp. We are going to impose a new
template that incorporates some of the things that we believe are core
standards for the American worker, but also for us as Democrats and for
the environment.
We have been joined as well by our colleague from Wisconsin Mr. Kind,
a cochair of the New Democratic Coalition. I know he would like to
participate.
Mr. KIND. If the gentleman will yield, I am very, very glad my
colleagues here tonight are taking time to try to explain what all the
news has been about the last couple of weeks, and this is a very
important template of trade that has been reached with the Democratic
leadership here in Congress, with the Bush administration.
Let me congratulate both of you for the leadership you have shown on
the Ways and Means Committee on this issue and so many other economic
issues that affect all of our constituents across the country.
I also want to commend Chairman Rangel, the chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee; and Sandy Levin, who is the chair of the Trade
Subcommittee; and Speaker Pelosi for the negotiation and hard work that
they put into this template of how we move forward on trade agreements
in this country.
For the first time I believe that the values of this Nation are
finally starting to be recognized and reflected as a basis of these
trade agreements; the attempt to try to elevate standards upwards,
rather than having a race to the bottom when it comes to trade
relations, because so many of our constituents have felt for some time,
and we have heard it in our own congressional district, that the trade
agreements really don't speak to their needs, that they are competing
on an uneven playing field in relation to the rest of the world.
That is really what this agreement was about, was trying to level the
playing field, to try to elevate standards globally, not only
influencing and recognizing the needs of our workers here in America,
but trying to influence and recognize the needs of workers throughout
the rest of the world by having basic principles as part of the trade
agreement, core international labor standards as part of these trade
agreements as we move forward, environmental protections, all on an
even par of enforcement with other important provisions that are part
of the trade agreement.
But let me also admit the sheer political fact, and that is there is
very little political upside in supporting trade in Congress these days
because it is so unpopular back home. I think because of that, because
of the growth of globalization and the interrelationship that we have
now in the world economy, very few workers feel that there has been a
real upside to them.
That is what we are trying to accomplish in this trade agreement is a
recognition that they, too, have a place at the table when this comes
to trade; that they do have rights that need to be protected and
assured; that we should be a Nation that stands up in opposition to the
exploitation of child labor or slave labor; that other workers around
the world, as they do in the United States, have the right to
collectively bargain so they have better leverage in negotiating
decent, fair working conditions and compensation for themselves and
their families, wherever they may be living in this planet.
But, to me, trade has been more than just goods and products and
services crossing borders, although that is what most people think
about as trade. Trade is also an important tool in our diplomatic
arsenal. It is also about how we, the United States, chooses to engage
the rest of the world, whether it is a negative engagement or a
positive engagement.
Nothing could be more positive than having a healthy trade
relationship with rules in place that everyone has to live by. I happen
to believe something that Cordell Hull, who was FDR's Secretary of
State, said many, many years ago, and that is when goods and products
cross borders, armies don't. There is so much conflict, and there are
so many rivalries, and there is so much violence in this world today
that trade, if used right, with the right rules of engagement, can be a
positive experience not only for our own economic needs here in the
United States, but also abroad. To me, that is what this agreement
really speaks to is incorporating these types of values now as we move
forward.
We have got a few trade agreements that we are trying to work on;
Panama and Peru, for instance. Colombia and South Korea may need some
more work in talking to a lot of our colleagues, but at least we are
establishing what those rules need to look like. Now we can get down
and haggle out the details as we do move forward.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. If the gentleman will yield, I think the way you put
it, I wanted to just echo that. What trade agreements really are are
setting the rules. I think you are right. There has been, I hear it, I
think we all hear it. We go in our districts and people say trade is
ruining us. Yet many of those same people work in companies that sell
products overseas and are proud of the work that they do. They realize
how specialized, how important the work is that we do, and how we often
are still setting the standards in the world marketplace.
But the reason to set these rules and to set the rules as strongly as
we can, and we are setting them now, it doesn't mean they won't be
changed at some point. They may need some tweaking, which is why you
renegotiate these agreements. They don't go on forever. It is a dynamic
marketplace we are in.
But it also means we can then go enforce those rules. And when we see
lack of enforcement, I understand that frustration. I have businesses
come to me, and I have tried to advocate on their behalf to say, wait a
minute, it is in the rules, and we are unfairly disadvantaged. Is there
something we can do? Sometimes there is.
We have seen dumping of steel. We are concerned about currency
manipulation in China. These are complicated issues. In some ways, I am
learning some of them myself.
But the fact is there are such different systems in these different
countries, and we need to recognize that. But there are so many nations
now that want to have a capitalist system and be able to have private
investment and to be able to compete with us. At the same time there
are very different rules in some of these countries, so we have to have
a mechanism for interpreting what is fair and what is not.
{time} 2030
That is part of the reason we do these trade agreements. So if there
is unfair manipulation, if there is dumping and State support for a
company that makes it very difficult for us to compete, we have the
rights within these agreements to bring forward those complaints and to
have a fair hearing.
Mr. KIND. We had a very important caucus meeting earlier today, the
Democratic Caucus, talking about the provisions of this trade
agreement.
What I heard in that caucus, and I am not going to speak on behalf of
those who spoke, but there was a lot of pent-up frustration. For the
last 6 years with one-party control, our
[[Page H5606]]
ideas, thoughts and values were excluded in terms of the template of
trade agreements and what was in these bilateral regional trade
agreements coming before Congress.
But also, as you just recognized, there is a big concern about the
lack of enforcement of existing trade agreements and the likelihood of
enforcement being done by this current administration in future trade
agreements when they come before Congress asking for our ratification.
That is a legitimate concern, a concern that I hear back home from a
lot of my constituents as well.
Unless the administration wants to step up and start enforcing these
trade agreement and say we entered into these trade agreements for a
reason, and that is to uphold the terms of the agreements and make sure
everyone is playing by the same rules, trade confidence in this country
is going to continue to ebb, and it is going to get worse. I think that
would be disastrous ultimately for our long-term national economic
growth and for helping our workers and expanding economic opportunities
both at home and abroad.
So there is a big question mark with the majority of the people in
this Congress with regard to the administration's willingness to
enforce these agreements.
Mr. CROWLEY. I think one of the aspects of the template that we are
talking about this evening, dealing primarily with the environment, for
instance, is something that has not gotten as much attention as the
labor and the ILO declaration has gotten in terms of its incorporation
within the template.
But I think it is important to note for the Record that the policy,
as it moves forward under this template that the Democrats have
created, will require our trading partners to enforce environmental
laws already on the books, that they have agreed to, and comply with
several multilateral environmental agreements, MEAs, which would
include: the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species;
the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances; Convention on
Marine Pollution, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Convention; the
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands; the International Whaling Convention;
and the Convention on Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources.
The U.S. is a signatory to all of these agreements, and I believe
that free trade agreements cannot be used to undermine any of these
MEAs. I think we all agree, as Democrats, that protecting the
environment and protecting our planet is something that is an important
element in any free trade agreement.
Mr. KIND. I look forward to working with my colleague here who, I
think, appreciates this. As we go forward with this new template, we
also need to focus on capacity building in a lot of these nations that
we are trying to enter into agreements with, countries like Panama and
Peru that aren't exactly wealthy and have a lot of resources, but to
enable them to establish the institutions so they can do a better job
of policing labor standards or environmental standards within their own
countries. I think there is a great need and calling for us to do that.
But, ultimately, there has to be a willingness on our part and the
administration's to take these agreements seriously and to enforce them
seriously.
We all hear it back home; when you see someone losing their job or a
plant closing down, it is usually laid at the doorstep of one of two
factors. Either it is bad trade or it is illegal immigration. It is
obviously more complex than that, but we need to have a broader
discussion within the context of trade, as well, in regard to worker
empowerment so that when people do lose a job, they don't have to make
a showing of trade relation in order to get any assistance from the
government. When a factory closes, it does not matter to the family
affected whether it is trade related or some other circumstance,
because they feel the pain the same way.
We have to step up our efforts in education and worker training in
this country so our workers have the skills to compete in a 21st
century economy and so they can be full participants. We should also be
talking more about portability of health care and pension and
retirement security, so it is not necessarily tied to a single job or
occupation; and when they lose it, they lose all of that, the whole
fabric of supporting their family is destroyed overnight.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. We spoke before about all of the other things that we
need to do to ensure that our businesses and workers are fairly able to
compete and excel.
One of the other things that I was going to say is that when we look
at these new environmental standards, it also creates opportunities for
American businesses. We have been speaking in a different context about
the way we are going to create more energy-efficient businesses and
products. And I am sure you have been visited, as I have been visited,
by entrepreneurs across this country who have great ideas and are
trying to move to market with solar and wind and biofuels and are ready
to go.
When you think about these other countries that are trying to move
very quickly to gear up and create new businesses, they are going to be
looking for that technology and they are going to be looking for the
scientists and the engineers. Hopefully, we will do a little patent
protection and intellectual property protection, but this is where
America has been so great, have that innovation and be on the cutting
edge to do the very next thing that will then be bought by not only
other American companies, but by other nations' companies as well. I
think there is a hunger across this globe for that kind of interaction
and cooperation. Market working, that is really what this is about, and
trade capacity.
So what this does, and it is not the end-all and be-all. I think that
is something we want the American people to understand. These are trade
agreements, some of the rules and trying to make sure that it is fair
for American businesses and American workers, and then are enforced.
But we have a lot of other work to do on education and health care and
research and development and some of our tax laws to, in fact, make
sure that we can compete and it is fair.
But I think we, as new Democrats, in particular, are very excited
about this challenge. It is scary. We hear from families who are
committed to making some of those other changes, particularly in trade
assistance adjustment. I think we will. So we recognize how difficult
this is. There have been certainly some serious bumps, and those are
very, very hard for families.
But we also have seen businesses grow and thrive and we have seen
individual workers go on to do remarkable work as well. That is what we
are trying to do with not just the trade agreements, but with all of
the work that we are trying to do in here in the Congress.
Mr. CROWLEY. We have been joined by another member of the New
Democratic Coalition, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) who has a
keen understanding of a number of the issues we just spoke about, trade
being one, and immigration being another. That may be a subject for
another evening for us to talk about.
Henry, I know you want to weigh in a bit as well on the trade
template that the new Democratic leadership has been able to forge.
Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Crowley. I certainly appreciate the hard
work of Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rangel and the ranking member, Mr.
McCrery, as well as Sandy Levin, working with the administration to
come up with an agreement. This is very important.
Let me give you some of my personal experience. I am from Laredo,
Texas, which is the largest inland port in the U.S. If you want to see
trade, go to a place like Laredo, Texas. I have seen not only the
primary jobs that are created, but also the secondary jobs it creates
when we talk about international trade.
When you look at the U.S. economy, the $12 trillion economy is
bolstered by trade, which is a pillar of our American economic power.
In 2005, U.S. exports to the rest of the world totaled $1.2 trillion
and supported one in five of the U.S. manufacturing jobs we have. Jobs
directly linked to the export of goods pay 13 percent to 18 percent
more than the U.S. jobs that we have.
Agriculture exports hit a record high in 2005 and now account for 926
jobs
[[Page H5607]]
that we have. So trade creates jobs, and I think the balanced approach
of the new Democrats plays a role in developing this and is something
that is so important to us.
I believe in trade for several reasons. It is not only the economics,
but the other thing is, we have to stay engaged in the dialogue. If,
for whatever reason, the United States would turn against trade, that
is not going to stop the world. Other countries are going to continue
entering into their own trade agreements. That is why it is important
that the United States continues trade negotiations and stays in the
dialogue.
If I can say one thing, and then I will leave it open, one of the
things that I have seen is ever since President John F. Kennedy talked
about the Alliance for Progress, he looked at countries like Peru and
Colombia, to make sure that we have that dialogue with them because if
we are able to do that, then we can bolster those economies. And again,
talking about immigration just briefly, but the more jobs you create in
those countries, hopefully the fewer people will come to the United
States. Being on the border, we see those people trying to get better
jobs in the United States.
Mr. KIND. I think you are exactly right. I would submit that in a
short while we will be engaged in a immigration reform debate in this
Congress. But as long as we have a huge economic disparity right across
our border and throughout the Western Hemisphere, really we will be
battling the issue of people wanting to come to the United States to
realize the hope and the promise of our country and a better way of
life for themselves and their families.
Trade is a way to try to elevate people's standards upwards and
create job opportunities across the globe. Or we will always be at the
losing end of the immigration proposition because of what the United
States has to offer and the temptation to enter this country either
legally or illegally for a better way of life.
Mr. CROWLEY. We are talking about uplifting these other countries, as
well, by transposing our core values as it pertains to labor standards,
as it pertains to the environment. I think that is something that
should not be lost on anyone when we look at what we are attempting to
do here.
Talking about Kennedy, talking about anyone who has looked to the
hemisphere that we are in, as well as the Southern Hemisphere, in many
respects you cannot move that hemisphere elsewhere. We are connected by
land mass.
I think as we move forward on the immigration debate and we discuss
this more and more, many of us believe we should be helping those
countries with direct aid and assistance, to help them become better
democracies or become democracies.
We see what is happening in some of those countries in South America
that are trying to experiment with other forms of government that we
don't necessarily agree with. It is not the way that we would prefer to
see South America move. I think that is why being able to bolster some
of those countries down there and show that there is a positive benefit
to be gained by having a positive relationship with the United States
in this template in trade and moving forward could very well be an
example that could be set for other countries in the region.
We have been joined by our friend and colleague from New York,
Congressman Meeks, who has certainly been engaged on many trade and
immigration issues, and has worked with Venezuela and other countries.
And I would love to have your input as well.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. You are exactly right, Mr. Crowley. Some
people would like to say individuals, particularly in our hemisphere,
that globalization and trade is taking advantage of them, that they are
poor. Yet these individuals, long before globalization existed, were
poor and taken advantage of. Here is an opportunity because of
globalization to give them a hand up.
Part of the problem has been that people have turned their backs on
them. When we trade and create jobs and opportunities for them in their
country, as well as making sure that we are creating jobs and
opportunity in our country, we have what is called a win/win situation.
For example, there is something called FedEx. For every 40 packages
that FedEx sends someplace else, we create a job in the United States
of America.
Mr. CROWLEY. If the gentleman would yield, I prefer to say for every
40 packages UPS delivers, we create one additional union job.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. And I concur. We are creating opportunities
for individuals here in the United States of America, as well as giving
individuals an opportunity for jobs in these foreign countries.
Many of the people are in the informal sectors in their communities
right now. When you go to South America, you can talk about Colombia,
Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, they are in the informal sector. What we are
doing is creating a formal sector where they can get health benefits
and talk about creating a future with pensions for their kids for
tomorrow. We are talking about giving them a hand up which they don't
have now in the informal sector.
{time} 2045
Mr. CROWLEY. We're also talking about trade capacity building.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Absolutely.
Mr. CROWLEY. They are going to want to afford our products the more
they can afford our products.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. As a result of that, and I'm direct evidence
of it, what they will do is then they will begin to educate their kids
so that they can now send their kids to school. And that becomes their
focus--to make sure that the next generation is better than theirs as
far as education is concerned and health care. It's exactly what we've
done in this country. So why should we just say it's exclusively for us
and not want to share the benefits of what we've gained in this country
with others? That's what leadership is all about, and that's all that
we're doing here.
We're not saying that we're going to turn our backs on other
individuals, say we're going to help them, and we're going to help
yourselves, because you know what, the number one jobs, when you look
about creating jobs in America, it's services. The services are
creating jobs over and over and over and time and again. And what we're
doing also by, you know, trading with our services in other areas,
we're creating jobs and opportunities, and, in fact, our businesses, I
often say this, become our best ambassadors because they look at the
jobs that Americans have created, and they say, well, thank you for
lifting us up, thank you, for showing us that you are not turning your
backs on us, thank you, because we're the only superpower in the world.
So folks are looking at us to be leaders in that regard, and if we turn
our backs on them, leaving these individuals not to have hope and
opportunity for tomorrow, then we will become the ones that's isolated
them, and we should not.
It's good foreign policy. It's good domestic policy, and it just
makes overall, good moral sense.
Mr. KIND. There are a lot of positive features to trade, but the
congressional district I represent, western Wisconsin, is still heavily
manufacturing, a lot of agriculture, and there's been a lot of
displacement and a lot of jobs lost.
And I don't think any of us here on the floor tonight are promising
that with this new template of trade that we're going to be able to
guarantee everyone's job in this country. You just can't do it. In
fact, each generation of Americans have had to wrestle with their own
transition and economic displacement that's occurred at that time
period. Whether we're moving from the agrarian to the industrial age,
from the industrial age to the information age, to the next new thing,
there are going to be displacements.
As long as we can remain the most innovative and creative Nation in
the world, which we've been able to sustain for some time, we're going
to be able to make those adjustments probably a lot easier than other
people around the globe.
I don't think anyone's here to offer this hope or promise that
everyone's job is going to be guaranteed with this new template right
now. We can't do that any more than we can shut down the information
age or shut down the World Wide Web and the Internet. Now with the push
of a button, we've got services crossing borders and collaborations
being created that we've never
[[Page H5608]]
imagined before, and that's a large part of globalization today.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. I just want to make a point here that when you talk
about lifting up, I want to make sure that people understand what trade
agreements really are about. This is not the foreign aid bill, and we
will discuss it in another moment, and I think there's important work
that we do through some of that.
This is also saying to the countries, if you're going to be our
trading partner, you have to allow certain labor standards. Some of
them are really very well known. We'll not allow child labor or slave
labor. But we're also saying that your workers have a right to
organize, have a right to bargain, and to be able to have workers in
some countries that have not had this opportunity to be able to band
together.
We know how important it is, as part of our own history continues to
be in speaking up on behalf of workers and making sure they're paid
fairly and treated fairly, that our rules are fair.
Mr. CROWLEY. Free from physical harm.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Exactly. We know there's a huge struggle.
So part of what we're saying is if you're going to be our trading
partner, then there's certain expectations about the way you treat
people, and that is true in the workplace. And once we're partners,
there are also broader issues, of course, about human rights and about
rule of law, and, you know, we have some deep concerns about this as
well. And this becomes sometimes complicated, but having that trade
agreement often allows the beginning debate and engages us to be able
to make, in some ways, some of these other expectations for themselves
and for us as well to be part of the world community, to be part of the
world economy.
And part of it is we don't want our own people to be disadvantaged,
but because we understand they have a right to organize, they have a
right to speak up, and if we have some kind of engagement with them,
then their standard of living will improve and, of course, hopefully
their human rights.
Mr. KIND. I think you're exactly right. One of the forces, quite
frankly, that we are contending with in the United States, in this
hemisphere, especially in South America, is a gentleman by the name of
Chavez, the President of Venezuela, who's been fond of traveling
around, spending his petrodollars all around, and delivering a very
anti-American message.
I think one of the reasons that message is starting to resonate, much
to our concern, is because a lot of the workers in those countries
where he's visited have felt excluded and left out of trade agreements.
What's in it for them? And finally, for the first time, with this
agreement, we're starting to address our concern for their needs as
well.
Mr. CROWLEY. If I could interject, no longer will our trade
agreements be negotiated by our government on behalf of and solely for
the benefit of multinational corporations. This is also under this
template an opportunity to negotiate and have the American worker be a
part of those negotiations, at least have a sense that someone here on
the Democratic Caucus is looking out for their interests and for the
interests of the poor people of the countries we're talking about.
Mr. CUELLAR. Let me just follow up on the points that they make.
First of all, for the people, like the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
said, if people are interested in labor standards, the environment,
raising up the wages of certain countries, the only way we can do this
is by having some sort of dialogue. If we retreat back, then there's no
vehicle to use to raise those standards, and this is why those trade
agreements are very, very important.
The second point is, and Mr. Crowley mentioned this, if you're
interested in the rule of law, if you're interested in the principles
of democracy, if you're interested in the economics, like the gentleman
from New York said, we have to have some sort of vehicle to engage
those countries, because if we don't engage them like you said, other
countries will do it. So either we get engaged, or somebody else is
going to do it.
Let me just give you a brief history about what happened to us in
Central America a few years ago. We decided to turn our back to a lot
of those countries. What happened? In the 1980s, you'll recall the
Communists, Nicaragua, the sandanistas all came in, and all of a sudden
the United States said, oh, you know what, we better get engaged. So,
instead of having trade agreements, we started sending arms to those
countries.
The response to that was the Caribbean-based initiative, and, of
course, we saw what happened with the other trade agreement we did.
This is why history should teach us that if we don't get engaged with
countries, then somebody else is going to fill the vacuum, whether it's
Chavez, like you mentioned a while ago, or it's going to be Castro or
somebody else. But if we don't stay engaged, we're going to lose this.
So this is why it's so important that we stay engaged in these trade
agreements.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. You're absolutely right, and here's another
reason why trade agreements are important, because if you look at
particularly our recent trade agreements, what they do is they level
the trade balance. Because a lot of these nations, when you talk about
Central America, they were already open to come to our market. They
were open to come to the United States. We didn't have access to
theirs. So we were able to level the trade imbalances.
And, in fact, when you talk about where we have the biggest
imbalance, happens to be with China, but you know what the fact of the
matter is? We do not have an FTA agreement with China. We don't even
have one with India. We've negotiated them. We were able to negotiate
them so that we can balance it so that it's fair to both sides as
opposed to it being unfair on one side.
You use the FTAs as an agreement to balance the playing field, to
balance the trade imbalances to a large degree as well, as well as
create hope and opportunity for people both abroad and at home.
Some folks say they don't like trade at all. Well, I challenge them,
especially if you're poor. I come from the southeastern Queens in New
York. I was raised in public housing. There's certain things that we
can't afford, and I look at poor people, a number of them, some of the
trade has helped them because they can now buy some goods that they may
not have otherwise been able to afford. So we've got to look at both
sides of this. It has created some jobs.
Where we've got to make sure that we're focused in the country is the
competitiveness issue. So we've got to make sure that we're educating
our young people so that they can take the jobs, the high-paying jobs
that, I might add, that globalization and us being a leader in
technology and information technology in particular and the services,
that we can create opportunities for them.
So, yeah, are there some dangers. If we allow our public educational
system to continue to go downhill, and we don't now focus on it, and we
don't make sure that our people are educated so that they can take the
high-paying jobs that are being created, then, yes, we're in danger of
succeeding as a country, period. Education is our greatest resource,
and competitiveness is where we've got to go, and that's what our focus
should be.
We should be working out together to make sure that we're competitive
with the rest of the globe because otherwise we lose out on this. It's
not as if to say globalization is a bad thing that's going to go away
tomorrow. Obviously it's not, and it's helping millions of people.
There are 6 billion people in the world, 6 billion people in the
world. There's only 300 million of us in the United States of America,
300 million. And of the 6 billion people in the world, over 3 billion
of them live on less than $2 a day. Why? They're in the informal
sector. Why? There's no hope and opportunities for them.
Don't you think that as we being the only world superpower, that we
can do something better; being humane, being the country that we are,
we could do something better for them?
Mr. KIND. You're exactly right. We're less than 4 percent of the
world population, and we can no sooner turn ourselves into a fortress
of solitude and hope to maintain economic progress and opportunity in
our own country.
[[Page H5609]]
But the Democrats in Congress haven't been dealing with trade in a
vacuum. We've been promoting this innovation agenda for some time. We
have had legislation on the floor to try to enhance further fields of
study in those crucial fields of math, science, engineering,
technology, those fields that will enable our students and workers to
be innovative and creative and develop into high-paying jobs that we
hope to see here in the United States.
We've been moving that legislation forward, working with our Senate
counterparts. We're trying to increase research investment in the
National Institutes of Health, for instance, so we can be at the
cutting edge of medical and scientific breakthroughs. All this is
interwoven into the economic agenda the Democrats have been standing
for that the New Democratic Coalition has been a big part of in helping
to formulate that agenda.
That's, I think, the direction we need, and I think the American
people want to hear that type of message and see that type of agenda.
Our concern is there's a lot of economic anxiety throughout the
country, and they want to know what their role is going to be in this
global marketplace. Perhaps more importantly, they want to know what
kind of future their children have to look forward to.
The Democrats for the first time have been able to get legislation to
the floor that speaks to those needs, that starts speaking to those
anxieties. Will it solve all those problems? No, but I think it's the
best hope that we have to make sure that our country is well positioned
to stay competitive globally.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. I know we're concluding our hour, but I just think
that's a great note, as New Democrats, for us to end on.
It is important for us to move forward on these trade agreements. I
think all of us would say this is a major breakthrough for the
Democrats to see this kind of labor and environmental standards and
kind of enforcement and commitment to do that.
But the real question is, this is just a piece of the puzzle. This is
only one part of it, and we're committed to a much broader agenda of
making sure our young people are prepared for the future, that some of
our slightly older people also have the enormous opportunities for new
directions for them as well, and that our businesses can be
competitive.
So we've a lot of work to do to making sure that our tax policy and
our trade policy and our education and health care policies and energy
policies all contribute to making sure that America has that economic
capacity and opportunity for all of our people.
Mr. CUELLAR. Let me just make two points to conclude.
First one, let's talk about the Constitution. Why are these trade
agreements different? Why are they going to be different; whether it's
Peru, Colombia, Panama or Korea, why are they going to be different?
First of all, in the past, the President pretty much negotiated the
agreement, and it was an up-or-down deal. This time, the Congress,
through our leadership, through the New Democrats, we're asserting
ourselves through the commerce clause. That is, we have the right to
assert ourselves to make sure that we're part of the process so we can
set up the framework. And this is why these trade agreements from now
are going to have a different type of framework, because Congress is
getting involved in the development of that trade policy, number one.
Number two, I will conclude with this. In 2005, the U.S. exports to
the rest of the world totaled $1.2 trillion. Think about that, $1.2
trillion. Jobs have been created all across the country not only by big
companies, but also by the medium and small companies.
Second of all, jobs that are directly linked to the export of goods
pay 13 to 18 percent more than the other U.S. jobs. I have seen this
personally in my hometown where we have this trading community. It
works, and we have to stay engaged, and this is why this new framework
that the New Democrats have developed along with our leadership will
provide the pathway for new agreements in the future.
And thank you again for all the work that y'all have done.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Let me conclude with this.
Number one, I want to just compliment Chairman Rangel and Chairman
Levin. They have done a great job. I mean, it's something the Democrats
have been asking for since the 1990s, I've been in Congress, to make
sure it's been included in every trade bill. They've done a fantastic
job to make sure that we protect environmental rights and labor rights,
et cetera.
We care about those individuals that we know are going to be hurt,
because in any agreement there are people that get hurt, and when we
talk about we've got to do a real comprehensive program so people can
be retrained and go back to work.
{time} 2100
Now that's even more than just trade agreements, because, you know,
if you check it out, really, more people have lost their jobs through
efficiency and technology. Think about it.
How many people does it take to produce a car today than it did
yesterday. When you need a telephone operator, does anyone pick up?
It's technology that picks up the telephone. You know, EZPass, and all
the conveniences that we currently have. We better do a better job.
I think that Mr. Rangel and Mr. Levin have put that in that we will
do a better job, and retraining Americans who are hurt, not only
because of trade, but who are out of the job for any reason, whether
it's technology or because of a trade agreement.
As Democrats, we are focused on that. We can do that. We can do good
by our folks at home, but we also can do good by the people abroad so
that we can be the leaders of the Nation. We are the world's only super
power.
Mr. KIND. I also want to commend Jim McCrery, who is ranking member
of the Ways and Means Committee, and the Republican colleagues on Ways
and Means who are also embracing this template to go forward on trade
agreements. But as Chairman Rangel reminded all of us today in caucus,
this new template doesn't commit any single member on future trade
agreements. We will still have the opportunity to review them when the
President formally submits them for our consideration. We will see if
they are the best deal struck for our Nation and for our constituents'
best interest.
I think now, with this agreement, the template is finally shaping up
to where we can get wider bipartisan support. There is still a lot of
work that needs to be done. We can't hold this out as the silver bullet
to the challenges that our workers are experiencing day in and day out,
but trade is going to be an important part of our economic equation,
whether we like it or not, because of the effects of global warming and
the ease of transporting goods and products, services, across borders,
all that is breaking down.
The question is, whether we roll up in a fetal position and pretend
it's not happening and try to pursue neo-isolationist policies, or
whether we embrace this change and try to make the changes that we have
to, to be in the best position to stay competitive.
That's really, I think, what the discussion will be about in the
coming weeks when we start analyzing these trade agreements coming
forward. I want to thank my colleagues for taking some time this
evening to discuss a very important issue on the floor. Hopefully, we
will have some more discussions in the future.
Mr. CROWLEY. Let me close by just saying thank you, thank you to the
gentlelady of Ohio for chairing this hour of debate, as well as all my
colleagues for being here this evening and participating in this free-
flowing discussion on this new template.
This new template, as we go forward, it really is a new day in terms
of trade negotiations, and the relationship between the minority and
the majority here in the House of Representatives, the comity that has
now been brought back, I think, to the Ways and Means Committee, to the
House in some respects. Hopefully, this can be an example of other
things we can work on in the future on behalf of all of our
constituents, again, Democrat, Republican, Independent and the like, to
move the agenda of America forward.
I want to thank each of my colleagues for participating this evening.
____________________