[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 98 (Monday, June 18, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6641-H6648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2115
                            FAST TRACK TRADE

  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.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to talk 
about trade, Fast Track, and what it's doing to this country.
  As a former millworker that worked over 28 years at Great Northern 
Paper Company, I know firsthand that the trade deals are crippling 
manufacturing in the State of Maine. We have lost over 23 percent of 
our manufacturing base alone since NAFTA came into effect.
  But it's more than just losing jobs. You're losing the identity and 
the community as well. We had certain labor market areas in the State 
of Maine that had over 33 percent unemployment rate. A lot of small 
businesses went under because the anchor of the community went under, 
it filed bankruptcy. The high school, senior class, was not sure 
whether they would be able to graduate from high school because the 
mill paid about 80 percent of the tax base. They hadn't paid their 
taxes, and the accreditation was in jeopardy. Alcoholism, divorce 
rates, people were filing bankruptcy because of trade.
  You can go anywhere pretty much in the Second Congressional District 
in the State of Maine, and you'll see a lot of empty factories that are 
no longer there. You'll see factories but you will not see the number 
of vehicles in the mill yard because of machines being shut down.
  It's because of our failed trade policy. We have to change the trade 
policy. We have to make sure that when Fast Track is up at the end of 
this month, that we not renew Fast Track. I think it's incumbent on 
each Member of Congress to look at these trade deals and have the 
ability to amend the trade deals. I don't think we should be a rubber 
stamp to the United States trade representatives, and that's what we 
are, rubber stamps: Either vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' and that's wrong.
  I have two colleagues here this evening who have really taken on this 
trade issue. They know firsthand from their own district what trade 
means to their constituencies. They know what it's done to the United 
States of America, as a whole. We have lost over 3 million jobs. We 
have to do better. We must do better.
  I think the last election, when a lot of candidates were talking 
about trade, they are ready, the American people

[[Page H6642]]

are ready for a new direction. It's my hope that this Congress will 
give a new direction, will change that flawed trade policy, the flawed 
trade model.
  I would like to recognize Congresswoman Linda T. Sanchez from the 
west coast of California, who has started the House Trade Working Group 
that also Congresswoman Betty Sutton has been very active on, and it's 
an issue that is very important to all of us here in our constituency.
  I recognize the Congresswoman from California.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Thank you, Congressman Michaud, 
and I also thank Betty Sutton for being here this evening to talk about 
the President's Trade Promotion Authority and its effect on working 
families. Mr. Michaud and I cochair the House working group, and we 
have been working very hard this year to emphasize the impact that our 
current failed policy has on average households.
  We are here because we believe that our trade policies should ensure 
a fair shake for American working families, not just for those who sit 
in corporate board rooms. We have already spoken many times in this 
House about the flaws in the new trade deal recently announced by the 
administration. This new deal, which applies to the Bush negotiated 
Free Trade Agreements with Peru and Panama, is an improvement over past 
FTAs, but it still doesn't give American families much to be excited 
about, quite honestly.
  Despite additional labor and environmental provisions, these 
agreements are based on the NAFTA trade model, the same failed NAFTA 
model that has hurt the American family for the past decade, the same 
NAFTA trade model that didn't bring about the jobs or the prosperity 
that we were promised, the same NAFTA model that didn't stop the 
immigration flow from Mexico, the same NAFTA model that hasn't been 
able to assure that our trading partners uphold the strong labor and 
environmental standards that we do here in the United States, thus 
putting our workers at a competitive disadvantage.
  If the long-sought-after labor and environmental protections the 
administration promises to include in the Peru and Panama FTAs are no 
stronger than those that we were promised in NAFTA or its cousin CAFTA, 
they are little more than hollow promises. Yet the Free-Trade-At-All-
Costs lobby asks the American people to have faith that the 
administration has really turned over a new leaf. They are asking us to 
trust that enforceable labor and environmental standards will be 
included in the text of the Peru and Panama agreements. But even if 
these agreements are the best written, fairest trade agreements 
possible, so long as they rely on this administration to enforce the 
labor and environmental standards they contain, they are not worth the 
paper that they are written on.
  This administration has failed to protect workers here in the U.S. 
The BP Texas City explosion, the Sago mine disaster and the 9/11 first 
responders and cleanup workers who have developed serious breathing 
ailments, these are just the most notorious examples of this 
administration's lack of dedication to provide even the most basic 
protection to workers: the right to work in a safe environment. Even 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says these new worker and environmental 
protections can't be enforced.
  Now, if that isn't telling, I don't know what it is. They flatly came 
out and said they are not enforceable. This President has lost our 
trust, and with it any argument that he has to renew his trade 
promotion authority. The administration's track record does not 
demonstrate a commitment to the working families of America.
  Free trade was supposed to create economic opportunity for everyone, 
for big businesses, as well as small businesses, working families at 
home and abroad, but that, quite frankly, hasn't been the case. The 
truth of the matter is that the NAFTA free trade model favors the 
wealthiest at the expense of small businesses, workers, families, and 
ultimately communities, like the communities Mr. Michaud was talking 
about that are dependent upon millwork for their life blood.
  More than a decade after NAFTA and NAFTA-styled replicas, it's clear 
that the promise of economic prosperity has yet to arrive. Our trade 
deficit has ballooned into the tens of millions of dollars. Real wages 
for American families are down, and our manufacturing base is falling 
apart.
  We need an administration committed to protecting the rights of 
workers, and until we get one we cannot grant this administration an 
extension of Fast Track authority. The American people deserve better. 
They deserve a commitment to trade that expands their opportunities 
rather than diminishes them.
  I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help our 
working families get back on track to economic prosperity.
  I urge them to oppose the Fast Track renewal, and I want to thank, 
again, my two colleagues for their leadership on this issue, because 
they have been trying to carry this message to those who have been 
unwilling to hear it.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments, and I 
hope that the American people are listening, because this is extremely 
important. We are heading into what I call a perfect storm. We have the 
largest budgetary deficit in our history, with over 45 percent owned by 
foreigners. We have the largest trade deficit in our history, almost 7 
percent of the GDP.
  We cannot sustain those types of deficits and maintain our Superpower 
status here in this country.
  With that, I recognize the gentlewoman from Ohio, who is a freshman 
Member, who is very, very knowledgeable on trade issues, a labor 
attorney, and has done a phenomenal job working with the freshman 
class, bringing the freshman class the materials that they need to talk 
about trade for those who needed the materials.
  I really appreciate your willingness to step out there your freshman 
year to really talk about trade. You understand the problems that trade 
has caused your State in Ohio, and we look forward to hearing your 
remarks this evening, Congresswoman Sutton.
  Ms. SUTTON. Thank you so much, Mr. Michaud, and Ms. Sanchez. Both of 
you, your leadership is a shining example for all of us. As you point 
out, this is a moment of supreme importance when it comes to the trade 
policy of this country.
  Last November, the American people cast their votes for new leaders 
with the hope that we would replace our broken trade system with one 
that will truly allow for fair competition, because we know that if 
given a fair playing field, we will excel in the global marketplace.
  The first step, as both of you so rightfully point out, has to be 
that Congress must stop ceding its constitutional authority and 
responsibility over trade to the President. The lack of oversight and 
accountability, giving the President what's been called Fast Track 
authority, the damage that Fast Track authority has wrought on the 
United States trade policy has led to devastating consequences, some of 
which you have already heard about throughout this country. It 
certainly has had a devastating impact on the area that I represent. We 
have lost over 200,000 manufacturing jobs in Ohio since 2000.
  That means that people's futures have been seriously put at risk. 
There are kids out there today who won't be able to go to college 
because of the jobs that their parents lost due to Fast Track, and the 
bad trade deals that resulted under Fast Track. There are people out 
there who won't have health care for their families because of the bad 
policy that has resulted under Fast Track.
  For them and for every American who has been hurt by the Bush 
administration's harmful trade policies, we must, we must let Fast 
Track expire permanently at the end of this month. Now, we all know 
that the United States' Constitution gives responsibility for trade to 
the Congress, and there was a reason for that.
  Our forefathers knew that they needed to keep that issue and control 
over that issue at a level that is closely connected to the people who 
are being represented. That's why Congress had that authority.
  Unfortunately, with Fast Track, the problem is the administration 
negotiates the deals, signs them, determines all the terms, and then 
weighs it before Congress, and you have to vote ``yes'' or ``no.'' You 
have no input on what the constraints are. You have no

[[Page H6643]]

say or ability to fix what is wrong with the deals as they come 
through. That is just not a path we should continue down.
  As has been mentioned, Fast Track has enabled the passage of trade 
deals like NAFTA and CAFTA, and of course the WTO, the World Trade 
Organization, all of that has accelerated as our leader here has 
pointed out, it's all accelerated a trade in jobs crisis. It's marked 
by an $800 billion trade deficit, and more and more people are feeling 
this across the country.
  In fact, I actually have a letter here that was sent to our leaders 
in both the House and the Senate from organizations, organizations like 
American Medical Students Association, The Change to Win Coalition, 
Communication Workers of America, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the 
Earth, hundreds, hundreds of organizations, national, State 
organizations; a wide variety of people, church organizations, all who 
oppose us extending Fast Track authority to the administration, because 
they know that the resulting trade deals are devastating to our 
communities, our businesses, our workers, our farmers and our country.
  So it is with honor that I stand beside my two esteemed colleagues 
here tonight to talk a little bit about this with them and with all of 
you at home who care, I know, deeply about us changing the direction on 
our trade policy.
  The good news is there are things that we could be doing, and that we 
should be doing to stop leaving our companies and our workers at a 
disadvantage.

                              {time}  2130

  And so I'm looking forward to exploring that with you both tonight.
  And at this point, Mr. Michaud, I yield back.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much. You're absolutely right when you 
talk about Fast Track, and we'll get into that a little bit more, 
because I know Congresswoman Sanchez has to go to another meeting, and 
I know she's been to Colombia a couple of times, so I'll be interested 
in hearing what she has to say about her trips to Colombia.
  But before she does, before I yield time, I'd actually like to give a 
quote. And it's not very often I quote Pat Buchanan. But I saw this 
quote and I thought it was worth quoting. It says, ``The trade deficit 
is a malignant tumor in the intestines of the U.S. economy.'' That's 
absolutely right. We have to start dealing with our trade deficit. And 
one way, one of the issues we have got to deal with is, as you 
mentioned Congresswoman Sutton, is not to renew Fast Track, which is 
extremely important. Let Congress do our job that we're elected to do, 
representing our constituents.
  I did have a chance to actually meet the President of Colombia a 
couple of weeks ago. I had an interesting conversation and asked 
several questions about the brutality and the murders that are 
happening in Colombia with trade unionists, and I'm looking forward to 
his response to some of the questions that I have.
  But right now, I'd like to yield to the Congresswoman from 
California, who actually had a couple of trips over to Colombia. If 
you'd kindly let us know what happened and what we can do.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Sure. About 2 weeks ago I 
returned from Colombia, and it was my second visit in just 7 months. 
Colombia is one of the countries that President Bush negotiated a free 
trade agreement with without really seeking the advice of those Members 
of Congress who have been vocal opponents to the NAFTA trade model 
which he based this agreement on.
  And I have to say at the outset, Colombia is a beautiful country. 
It's people are a warm people. We were well received there. And so I 
want to be very clear that I am for expanding trade with countries 
around the world, but in a way that is fair and balanced to both our 
workers here in the United States and also the workers in the countries 
that we seek to engage in trade with.
  Just for the record, Colombia has a horrible record on human rights 
and labor rights violations. In Colombia, more trade labor unionists 
were killed there last year than in all the countries of the world 
combined. So it has an abysmal record with respect to violence towards 
people who try to organize workers to help lift them out of poverty. 
And nobody really wants to talk about that dirty little secret of 
Colombia's, because they want to talk about how much better things are 
in the first 6 months of this year.
  The statistics do show that there is an improvement. I will grant 
them that, and I applaud that. But it still means that about 99 percent 
of the murders that happened last year have gone unsolved, and nobody 
has been brought to justice for that.
  And the reason why trade labor unionists are targeted is because they 
speak out on behalf of people who are living in poverty, who are 
earning wages that don't allow them to support themselves or a family. 
They're working in dangerous working conditions.
  And I have to say, on the trip that I just most recently returned 
from, we really weren't given a lot of time to go and actually talk to 
the workers themselves about their experience. We were basically told 
by the government that things are getting better and things were 
improving.
  Interestingly enough, the first trip that I took to Colombia last 
November, I met with labor organizations, civil rights groups and 
advocates, and I met with the workers themselves who told me, ``don't 
be fooled by the rosy picture that our government has painted. It's 
very dangerous here in Colombia to speak up if you are working in 
dangerous working conditions. It's very dangerous in Colombia to speak 
up if you'd like to see your wages rise so that you can support 
yourself.''
  And, in fact, there is a very big informal labor sector in Colombia 
which isn't even subject to basic standards like a minimum wage. 
There's no minimum wage for these folks. There are no contributions 
made on behalf of them for the hours that they work into any kind of 
Social Security or pension system. And there are no workplace safety 
standards. A lot of these workers work in some of the biggest 
industries that they're pushing the free trade agreement because they 
say that they need to expand these industries, one of which being the 
textile industry, which is notorious for their workers that are part of 
the informal sector that don't have contracts, that don't have any 
basic rights.
  And basically, in Colombia, when I bring up the point that there's 
this promise made to lift all these people out of poverty, but when 
they have to compete against U.S. goods, some of which will be 
subsidized, like many of our agricultural products, who is going to 
suffer the most? Who's going to bear the cost? Because they tell me, 
oh, yes, there are some transitional costs associated with moving 
towards this new free trade agreement, but they're transitional costs; 
they won't be forever, and not everybody's going to be affected.
  But let me tell you who will be affected by those transitional costs: 
rural, poor, indigenous people and largely women who are heads of 
households. They are the ones that will suffer the most, not to mention 
American workers who will have to compete in industry with Colombia, 
where they have no minimum wage, no minimum work day, so they can work 
workers 16 hours a day if they want, and no safe working conditions.
  And there's just, quite frankly, no way that American workers, who 
demand a certain level of respect and dignity at the workplace, are 
going to be able to compete in industries where those are the 
conditions that Colombian workers are working in.
  Knowing all of this, did President Bush negotiate with Colombia a 
free trade agreement that would try to address those very basic labor 
standards? No. He based the Colombian free trade on the NAFTA model. 
They didn't even put in basic rights that are respected around the 
world as international standards for human and labor rights. He just 
said, hey, the marketplace is going to take care of it. We're going to 
move forward. This is the trade agreement, and Congress, because of 
Fast Track authority, you can't change it; you can't make it better; 
you can't amend it. It's either yes or no; you vote in favor of this. 
And if that's the choice that I'm given, my vote is no because it 
doesn't even try to address the problem with the labor standards and 
the violence in Colombia.
  I say, hey, I'm willing to give Colombia the benefit of the doubt. If 
you can

[[Page H6644]]

show to me over a certain length of time, minimum of 2 years, that, 
yeah, you've gone after these people that have targeted labor 
unionists, and yeah, you've moved people out of the informal sector 
into the formal sector where people have basic standards, I'm willing 
to give Colombia an opportunity. But I'm not willing to enter into a 
trade agreement with them based on empty promises of how much better 
things are going to be.
  All we heard when we were there, 90 percent of what we heard was how 
much better Colombia was at human rights and how much better they were 
at trying to find those responsible for killing trade labor unionists. 
But while we were there, one of the biggest scandals that has hit 
Colombia in recent months is the scandal of paramilitary groups that 
are linked to elected members of their congress, elected governors, 
some of whom were hand picked, and cabinet members, some of whom were 
handpicked by President Uribe himself. And these paramilitary groups 
have been responsible for killing people, for massacres of villages of 
people. And currently, 14 elected officials sit in jail because they've 
been tied to these paramilitary groups. And there are as many as two 
dozen more that are under investigation.
  But we're supposed to trust President Uribe that they're going to 
bring these people to justice and that labor rights and human rights 
are going to be better in Colombia. I say, show me, and then we'll sit 
down and negotiate. But I thought it might be interesting to just 
inform you guys a little bit about what the flavor of that trip was.
  And like I said, I think the Colombian people are wonderful people. I 
think we need to open up new markets. But we need to do it in a way 
that's fair and balanced for our workers here, so we don't continue to 
hemorrhage manufacturing jobs, and for the workers in these countries, 
which corporations will exploit.
  And with that, I will yield back to Mr. Michaud.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Sanchez. You're 
absolutely right, and that's one of the problems with Fast Track and 
why this Congress should not renew Fast Track. Even if we did have a 
say in these trade deals, as you mentioned, particularly with Colombia, 
I'm not sure that even if we had the ILO standards in the agreement 
that that would help as far as the murders and the assassinations that 
are going on in Colombia. I've met with several elected officials on 
different occasions from Colombia, and they're scared for their lives. 
There's one senator that actually sleeps no more than two nights in a 
row in the same bed because he's been threatened with his life.
  And we've been told, or I've been told in those meetings that they 
want to set an example, the paramilitary, and they force some of the 
other labor folks to go out there with actually, they told me that they 
actually beheaded a trade unionist. And that's wrong. So no matter what 
we do on trade deals, like you, Congresswoman, I want to see results 
before I agree with any trade deal with Colombia at all. We have to get 
back to changing that model.

  I'm very pleased actually to see another colleague from the great 
State of Ohio who has taken a great leadership role since he's been 
here on trade but also has introduced major legislation that will help 
deal with one of the components when you look at the flawed trade 
model. And he's also a member of the 30-plus caucus now, I guess, 
something caucus, congressman Tim Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. And I appreciate, I caught 
bits and pieces of the debate here, and I think you all have 
illustrated points that need to be made, and we need to keep making 
them here if we're going to have any headway.
  And I remember sitting in the meeting with the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Michaud) where the politicians were talking about this trade 
unionist who was trying to organize a plant, and the next day or two 
days later, he's beheaded. Now, we think labor politics are tough in 
the United States, which they are, but I don't think they come anywhere 
close to that level.
  And it is a pleasure for me to be here with my partner in Summit 
County, Ohio, Akron, Ms. Sutton.
  I just want to make a broad point and then talk a little bit about a 
bill that I have introduced with Duncan Hunter on currency. And the 
first point I want to make, and I think everything that you were 
talking about is saying, we need to represent our values here in the 
United States of America, not just here when we hear about family 
values, and we need to have values and we all agree with that. But put 
it in our actions. And I think that's what we want to do, and the trade 
agreements that we sign consistently, I think, go against it. And when 
you look at what the results are, and Sojourners had a great magazine; 
I may have sent it to some of you.
  Two percent of the world owns more wealth than the other 98 percent. 
Now, that's unbelievable. Two percent of the world own more wealth than 
the other 98 percent combined. That signals to us that the models that 
you were talking about, Mr. Speaker, are not sufficient for shared 
growth for all people.
  And we're not saying that if you go out and you start a company and 
you take a risk and you take out a loan, that you shouldn't be able to 
make money. God bless you. Make all you want. But recognize that you're 
a part of a bigger system here that we're all a part of that, 
investments in education, the minimum wage which we finally were able 
to get passed, college tuition; all of these things matter, health care 
in the grand scheme of things. And what we want to do is start 
exporting some of these values that we hold dear.
  And when you say, well, you can make something in China and there are 
no labor laws, no environmental laws, no this, well, what's the 
alternative? We go back to those days? And I've been to China. You may 
have, too. Dumping waste in the rivers, like we had a problem up in 
Cleveland a few decades ago where the Cuyahoga River caught on fire. 
Now we don't want to go back to those days, where thousands and 
thousands of kids got asthma because we didn't have clean air 
regulations. We don't want to go back to those days.
  So we are now in a unique period in history, because in the United 
States, we're the consumer. We're the ones buying right now. Now, that 
may not be the case 10 years from now, but we are now, and so let's 
leverage our power as consumers to make some of these changes.
  And I hope that what we're doing here tonight, and Mr. Michaud and 
Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Sutton, what we're doing here tonight is going to 
help push those things along.
  The China currency bill that we have introduced here basically tries 
to get China to comply with international law. And international law 
says you're not allowed to subsidize your goods.
  Well, China is subsidizing their currency, which is kind of a little 
more complicated than a government saying, okay, you make this widget, 
we're going to fund you; we're going to subsidize you so you can sell 
it cheaper in another country.
  What China's doing with their currency is basically subsidizing it so 
that every product that they send the United States is between 25 and 
40 percent cheaper.
  I have a company in my district called Wheatland Tube. And it's also 
in Mr. Altmire's district in Western Pennsylvania. They make tubing. 
The final product that arrives on the shores of the United States from 
China is the same price as Wheatland Tube's raw materials before they 
even start the process. That's the kind of advantage China's getting 
with their currency.
  And I know you all are supportive of this bill, and I think it's 
something that we can, not talking just about trade, but this is 
something that I think free traders and fair traders and Democrats and 
Republicans and people from all over the country are agreeing on. And I 
know Mr. Levin and Mr. Rangel want to move on a bill that does 
something with China, and I hope that this is a component of that, and 
I'm confident it will be.

                              {time}  2145

  But those are the kind of things that we need to stand up and talk 
about. And if we don't, no one will, because there is a certain amount 
of people that will benefit from the current system, and they are the 
ones who want to keep it just the way it is. But it is important for us 
to come here, 700,000 constituents, 700,000 constituents, 700,000 
constituents, it adds up if we unify and organize and do what I think

[[Page H6645]]

made all the great social movements in the country great, was 
organization, traditionally the Democratic Party, the unions, the 
churches.
  And I will make one final point that I know I have made to you guys 
already. It is so important for us to bring in the church communities. 
I am Catholic, and I think the Catholic Church has an obligation. They 
speak out on so many issues that I think have less relevance than this 
issue on average people's day-to-day lives. And I hope that they step 
up and talk about this issue with the same passion that we hear them 
speak out on a lot, and the evangelicals we just need to pull.
  Sojourners Magazine with Jim Wallace did a terrific job a couple of 
issues ago. But if this does not become a moral, value-centered 
movement, we are going to continue to struggle. We have the 
environmentalists and we have the trade unionists, and we have some of 
us in the Democratic Party. But if we don't pull in the church 
community, I think we are going to continue to fail.
  I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Ryan. And you are absolutely 
right. This is more than jobs and the economy. It is a moral issue. And 
as I mentioned earlier about some of the problems that I have even seen 
in my district, my hometown, when the mills shut down because of unfair 
trade deals, it is a moral issue. And I hope that the churches do get 
involved in this issue.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I know that our friend from Minnesota is here, but 
I just want to tell one story because I heard it a few weeks ago from 
my cousin who worked for Delphi Packard.
  The plant used to be 15,000 and now they are down to maybe 1,000 
because of the global economy, trade deals, China, the whole nine 
yards. He worked there for probably 10 years, and many people worked 
there for 30 and made a great living. He is now taking the machines off 
the ground, taking the bolts out of the ground, helping move these 
machines, and they are shipping them to China. Now, let's talk about 
some dignity. This guy is taking out the machines and shipping the 
machines and his job off to China.
  That is where we are at. And we have got some work to do. We are not 
saying build fences and don't compete. But investments in education, 
what we talked about early on with stem cells and alternative energy, 
let's create the new wave of jobs that need to be created for our 
people to work. It is not just trade and exporting. It is making 
investments in the U.S. and creating new jobs.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much. That is a very good point that you 
mentioned because the very mill that I worked at, we had six paper 
machines. Four are no longer there. They were unbolted and shipped 
overseas. So that is absolutely right. People might not think they are 
going to unpack the machinery and move them overseas. It has happened. 
I have seen it happen, and it will continue to happen unless we change 
the flawed trade model that we have been operating. And part of that 
component that is absolutely right is the currency manipulation with 
China that we have to address.
  And as Mr. Ryan had mentioned, we have Mr. Ellison here, who is also 
another freshman Member of the freshman class who is very interested in 
the trade issue. So I yield to Mr. Ellison.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Michaud, 
Congresswoman Sutton, Congressman Ryan, and also Congresswoman Sanchez, 
who left us, because you all have been carrying the banner of trade all 
night, fair trade.
  And I think that before I jump into my remarks that I pulled together 
for tonight, I just want to say this: We are talking about trade, Mr. 
Speaker, within the context of two decades of flat wages for working 
people. When you look at real wages, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about 
flat real wages for working people. We are talking about a system of 
health care where we leave 47 million people out of it and so many 
other people carrying an increasing burden on their jobs just to be 
able to afford the health care that their job does provide. It is 
within this context that I want to talk about trade tonight within flat 
wages, within increasing health care costs, within the context of 
increasing and mounting consumer debt.
  The average American, when you take their mortgage out of the 
equation, has about $13,000 worth of consumer debt to carry around. And 
that is talking about your credit cards and everything else. So we have 
got consumer debt, increasing health care costs, and flat wages. And 
now we are going to talk about trade, trade that has sapped our jobs.
  If you look at NAFTA, NAFTA alone I want to talk about tonight. NAFTA 
was sold as a way to make sure that workers both in Mexico and in 
America would benefit. But has that really happened? Has that really 
happened?
  What has really happened is the opposite. We have seen 3 million jobs 
lost, 30,000 in Minnesota alone. NAFTA, by permitting its heavily 
subsidized U.S. corn and other agricultural business products to 
compete with the small Mexican farmers, has driven the Mexican farmer 
off the land due to low price imports of U.S. corn and other 
agricultural products. Some 2 million Mexicans have been forced out of 
agriculture, and many of those that remain are living in desperate 
poverty. These people are among those who cross the border to feed 
their families.
  NAFTA service sector rules allow big firms like Wal-Mart to enter the 
Mexican market and begin selling low price goods made by ultra-cheap 
labor in China to displace locally based shoe, toy, and candy firms. 
These estimated 28,000 small- and medium-sized Mexican businesses have 
been eliminated. Wages along the Mexican border have actually been 
driven down by about 25 percent since NAFTA. The Mexican border has 
actually been driven down since NAFTA, reported a Carnegie Endowment 
study. An oversupply of workers, combined with a crushing of union-
organized drives as government policy, has resulted in sweatshop pay, 
running sweatshops along the border, where wages typically run 60 cents 
to $1 an hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I mentioned what is going on with Mexico because I think 
it is so important from the standpoint of the American worker, the 
American worker who is trying to put food on the table, hold jobs here 
in our country, it is critically important. We are talking about, as I 
said, flat wages, rising health care costs, increasing consumer debt. 
And it is so important to understand that this immigration debate we 
are having is heavily informed by what? Trade. Our trade policy is 
increasing the pain not only on American workers but on workers abroad. 
As we fight back and forth, to and fro, about what we should we do, 
more border security, higher walls, fences. We have all these raging 
debates around here around these issues. What we have literally done 
through this NAFTA trade policy and other trade policies like it is 
wiped out an economy in another country and not just pulled people here 
through higher wages but pushed them here by elimination of their 
economies in Mexico.

  So, Mr. Speaker, I bring these points to the floor tonight so that we 
can have more informed debate so that when people say, hey, look, why 
are these folks making such a big deal about fair trade policy, it is 
important to know that the middle class is being pinched and squeezed. 
And so often even here in Congress, we are being told that the problem 
is some immigrant, when in reality the problem, I believe, is heavily 
subsidized agri-businesses and our trade policy, which allows us to 
dump cheap, low-cost corn into countries like Mexico, which wipes out 
their farm economy and drives workers there over here so that they can 
make a living.
  Mr. Speaker, it is critically important that we understand these 
issues and we get these issues on the table as we debate them because 
it is hypocritical, in my opinion, to talk about spending $700 million, 
or however much we are going to spend on a fence, and not adjust our 
trade policies. We can't build a fence high enough if we keep on 
destroying the farm economy in Mexico and dumping cheap commodity 
prices there. We have to fix our trade policy. We have to fix a trade 
policy that benefits American workers and workers around the world too, 
Mr. Speaker.

[[Page H6646]]

  So I didn't come here to say a whole lot more than that, Mr. Speaker. 
I want to get this issue of trade policy in the debate as we talk about 
immigration policy, and I want to talk about trade policy within the 
context of the squeeze the middle-class people are feeling every day.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ellison brought up a very good point. 
There has been a lot of discussion over the past month about 
immigration, particularly in the Senate. We will be having our 
discussions here in the House. And that is part of the component when 
you look at trade. It is not a simple issue. And Mr. Ellison hit the 
nail right on head. If you look at immigration, what is happening, they 
are coming across the border because they want a job. They want a good 
job so they can provide for their family like any one of us would be 
doing for our family, provide for our family.
  I was reading an article, actually, ``Since NAFTA, Winners and 
Losers.'' I will just read a part of this article. It says: ``As a 
bonus,'' talking about NAFTA, ``the predicted increase in jobs and 
prosperity in Mexico under NAFTA was expected to reduce illegal 
immigration. In 1994, when NAFTA was put into effect, then-Attorney 
General Janet Reno predicted that illegal immigration would fall by 
two-thirds within 6 years.''
  And I want to quote the former Attorney General Janet Reno: ``NAFTA 
is our best hope for reducing illegal immigration in the long haul. If 
it fails, effective immigration control will become impossible.''
  I want to repeat that again. This is the former Attorney General 
Janet Reno: ``NAFTA is our best hope for reducing illegal immigration 
in the long haul. If it fails, effective immigration control will 
become impossible.''
  And that is absolutely right. We have seen what is happening since 
NAFTA. The same flawed model is in existence. It is going to take a 
real active role of the freshmen class and Members of this Congress on 
both sides of the aisle who really want to make a difference. A new 
direction, that is what we need, a new direction.
  We need a new trade model. Part of that trade model will go to what 
Congressman Ryan had mentioned when you look at the China currency 
manipulation, when you look at the value-added taxes, legislation that 
has just been introduced, bipartisan legislation dealing with a value-
added tax that we have to look at that accounts for a big portion of 
our trade deficit. In the United States, 94 percent of all U.S. exports 
and imports with trade deal with countries that have a value-added tax. 
That is hurting this country.
  And for those of you who do not know what the value-added tax is, 
actually, for the countries who export their products to the United 
States, they actually have been rebating those companies the value-
added tax to a tune of $217 billion in 2006. Plus if the United States 
wants to export their product over there, they are actually taxed to a 
tune of $110 billion. This has to change. This has to change.
  And when you talk about Fast Track, actually during the several 
discussions about reauthorizing Fast Track in 1974, 1988, and 2002, 
Congress actually encouraged the USTR to change the value-added tax so 
we can be put on a level playing field. We have got to change the 
rules. This is one of the components that we can deal with in changing 
that rule.
  I yield to Congresswoman Sutton.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Michaud, again, your leadership is inspiring.
  And, Mr. Ellison, thank you for being down here. You have been a 
tremendous leader on these issues, and your points about immigration 
and the complexity and the links between these subjects is well taken 
and important to recognize because, as you point out, Mr. Michaud, with 
the numbers about the value-added tax, the VAT tax, there is nothing 
free about that. When they call it ``free trade,'' you kind of think 
you are going to get something good back in return, and it just hasn't 
been working.
  And the reality is when you read the quote by the former Attorney 
General, at that point the issue was theoretical. It was hypothetical. 
We didn't know for a fact actually what would happen. We thought. We 
had our ideas. We had our suspicions. But it is no longer theoretical. 
We know how this trade model has failed, and it doesn't make sense for 
us to continue down that same path.

                              {time}  2200

  You know, we had some talk here this evening about some of the trade 
deals that are still pending under the Fast Track authority that the 
administration still maintains. And a couple of those were mentioned in 
passing, including the pending deals with Peru and Panama, and of 
course Colombia and Korea. And recently, the administration and some 
congressional leaders actually announced that the labor and 
environmental standards were going to be included in the Peru and 
Panama agreements. However, right after that announcement, reports 
indicated that those standards may be put into side letters, where 
we've seen them go and not be enforced. And we also heard those who 
represent the multinational interests who are benefitting under our 
current broken trade policy boast that the standards will not be 
enforceable. Those are concerning developments.
  And I guess it is also important to note that, even if the standards 
are ultimately in the core of the FTAs, experience tells us that they 
will not be enforced. In 2000, Congress passed the Free Trade Agreement 
with Jordan, and it had those labor and environmental standards in it. 
As a result, it received broad support. Actually, some of those who 
believe in fair trade and are committed to it voted for it because of 
those standards. But you know, alas, despite documented violation upon 
documented violation, those standards have not been enforced.
  So getting back to sort of the points that you have all been making, 
rather than continuing to pass more free trade agreements that won't be 
enforced and will result in the consequences we've seen under the 
broken trade system, which means more lost jobs, a bigger trade 
deficit, more of the negative consequences, not just in this country, 
but it's out of whack all over; rather than doing that, it makes sense 
for us to focus on things like that of Mr. Ryan's bill that will help 
to fix our broken system.
  You know, Congress should focus on replacing policies that reward 
businesses for outsourcing jobs with incentives and should focus on 
sensible tax policies and would help businesses and workers make it in 
America.
  Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SUTTON. Absolutely.
  Mr. ELLISON. Under the current model that we have, who is the entity 
responsible for enforcing trade provisions such as labor or 
environmental standards? Whose job is it to police those standards?
  Ms. SUTTON. Well, the greatest level of enforcement actually begins 
and rests most directly with the administration.
  Mr. ELLISON. So has the administration been an advocate, protector of 
the rights of workers in America, much less right around the world?
  Ms. SUTTON. The gentleman asks a good question. No. No. The answer is 
no. And I think that that's an important point. And our colleague, Ms. 
Sanchez, made a very important point, too, about how this 
administration feels about human rights and workers' rights because she 
talked about the fact that they negotiated, this administration, an 
agreement with Colombia, where the murder of labor organizers and human 
rights violations are routine. And I think the fact that they are 
willing to enter into that agreement without being extremely diligent 
on correcting that tells us all we need to know about what this 
administration thinks about the need to enforce and deal with labor 
rights, labor standards and human rights. So I think that is very 
concerning.
  If we deal with things, though, like currency manipulation and we 
deal with things like making sure that products that are produced 
elsewhere are safe for consumption here, because again, there are costs 
associated with safety. We have seen a lot of bad repercussions in 
recent days about products coming from outside of this country here. In 
fact, today, just today in USA Today was an article that dealt with 
lead in children's jewelry and how it

[[Page H6647]]

was hurting our kids, and China refusing to agree to changing that 
practice.
  I yield back to the gentleman from Maine.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Actually, I would like to follow up, Mr. Ellison, if I 
might, because I have in front of me, actually, testimony of the 
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative, Ms. Moore, who attended our 
hearing in the Small Business Committee on June 13. And I will 
paraphrase. It says, ``Our work aims to increase exports by expanding 
market access for American goods, creating a level playing field.'' She 
also mentions, and it gets right to your point, ``In addition, we 
enforce agreements and resolve trade problems using a wide variety of 
tools.'' That is clearly not what's happening.
  Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICHAUD. Yes.
  Mr. ELLISON. A wide variety of tools. I would be curious to know what 
some of those tools might be. Are we talking about tickling somebody 
with a feather, or what kind of tools are we talking about? Are we 
dragging somebody into a tribunal and getting sanctions on them, or are 
we just talking about something else?
  Mr. MICHAUD. Well, if you are tickling them with a feather, it's 
probably a feather made in China.
  And I can tell you, the Trade Working Group has worked very closely 
with a variety of different groups, environmental groups, religious 
organizations, labor, business organizations, the United States 
Business and Industry Council, associations, small manufacturing 
businesses here in this country. And the United States Business and 
Industry Council has told me directly that the United States Trade 
Representative has turned away businesses when they've brought 
complaints to the USTR primarily because the dollar amount wasn't 
enough. And I can tell you personally that, as you know, I worked at 
the Great Northern Paper Company for a number of years, and when the 
company I worked for, when I was talking to the public relations before 
they filed bankruptcy, they actually went to the Department of Commerce 
and talked about trade and what it's doing, and the response that they 
got: Yup, you've got a great argument, but go spend over a million 
dollars and come back to us later on. Well, we couldn't hold on. They 
filed bankruptcy. They closed the doors at the time, and it is 
devastating. So they are not enforcing those agreements, and we 
continue to see a huge disparity in our trade policy.
  Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICHAUD. Yes.
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, if we already start out with what is a trade 
policy that is lax, a trade policy with a model that is not inclined 
toward saving American jobs, and then they won't even enforce the rules 
that they do have, what will happen if we vote for a trade policy for 
Peru and Panama that supposedly has these provisions in it, but they 
don't enforce them?
  The fact is, I would like to ask the gentleman from Maine and the 
gentlelady from Ohio what they think about a trade model which would 
give labor organizations, for example, the right to charge an 
infraction of a labor standard and to bring a country into court for 
violating a labor standard? What if the sole power for enforcing the 
labor agreement was not in the hands of a trade representative that was 
favorably inclined to multinational trade but not so much for American 
workers, but actually in the hands of a labor organization; how might 
that play out?
  Ms. SUTTON. Well, the gentleman asks a good question. He makes, 
actually, a great point, because the reality here is that we clearly 
don't have an enforceable system. First of all, the rules aren't good 
to start with. They're inadequate, and we have talked a lot about how 
they're inadequate. But the reality is, this Congress could do a myriad 
of things, actually, to shape the roles. And they shouldn't be left up 
to just sort of an, oh, maybe if it's a certain dollar amount, maybe if 
it affects something I care about. No, it really should be guided by 
the infraction itself, the infraction of the law, the infraction of the 
rule.
  So, one way would be possibly to go down the path that you're talking 
about. And there are other avenues that we might pursue also. But the 
point is, we really need to fix it because you heard our esteemed 
colleague from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) talking about how we are investing in 
new technologies. And we all agree with that, we are all supporters of 
innovation. But when you have a company that is subsidizing and giving 
a 40 percent advantage from the start, all of the new technology, all 
of the education and workforce training in the world, all the increased 
productivity will never allow us to overcome that 40 percent head 
start.
  So, again, the points are well taken. Rather than focusing on trade 
deals that are going to just take us down the same path to lost jobs, 
why don't we fix those things and then create a system in which trade 
can flourish? Because I believe in trade.
  Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SUTTON. Absolutely.
  Mr. ELLISON. Should our trade model be driven by promotion of 
American economic activity, including jobs? Or should it be driven by 
profit margins of huge multinational companies that really have no 
allegiance other than the profit margin each quarter?
  Mr. MICHAUD. Well, I think a trade model definitely should look at 
jobs and putting us on a fair level playing field.
  If you look at this Congress, particularly with the freshman class 
that we currently have who has been out there, very aggressively, 
talking about a new direction, we do need a new direction; we have to 
pause with all these trade deals that are currently going on. Even the 
former President, Bill Clinton, said we ought to pause on these trade 
deals to see what's happening.
  Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICHAUD. I would yield.
  Mr. ELLISON. He ought to know.
  Mr. MICHAUD. That's true. He's the one that brought us NAFTA. But 
these issues aren't Democratic issues or Republican issues. These are 
issues that are important to the United States, important to our long-
term future, and we have to look at changing that model. And it can be 
done in a bipartisan manner. Congressman Tim Ryan, who was on the 
floor, is sponsoring legislation with a Republican Member of this body, 
Duncan Hunter, on the currency manipulation. I am glad to see that a 
Presidential candidate is out there talking about trade, along with 
Dennis Kucinich, who is also talking about trade. We have the value-
added tax, which is another piece of legislation which has strong 
bipartisan support, once again, Congressman Duncan Hunter, Congressman 
Walter Jones, myself and Congressman Bill Pascrell.
  So these issues are not Democratic issues or Republican issues. These 
issues are American issues. And we definitely have to be more 
aggressive. We have to change that trade model. And we have to sit down 
and pause, and sit down in a bipartisan manner, no backroom deals. 
We've seen what these backroom deals have done in the past, and they 
don't work. We have to work open so the public can see what is going on 
and the real effect that we currently are seeing with trade deals.
  Ms. SUTTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICHAUD. Yes.
  Ms. SUTTON. You know, and to my colleague, Mr. Ellison, your 
question, I think it bears sort of repeating. It is inexplicable, but 
the United States seems to be the only nation that does not find it 
acceptable to help our companies, to protect them, workers and 
communities, against unfair trade practices. And as a result, we are 
left at a disadvantage. All we are really asking for is that they have 
a fair shake. That's all we are asking for.
  Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentlelady yield? I agree. American workers are 
some of the best in the world, innovative, hard-working, no doubt about 
it, and given a fair chance, can compete with any workers or anyone 
around the world, but we just need a fair opportunity. So I think we 
need a new model, a new way of doing business that will protect 
American workers and also protect American small businesses, and other 
businesses that actually are in the business of helping America prosper 
and do well.
  And before we wrap up, because I think we are probably getting close, 
I

[[Page H6648]]

just want to say briefly that I hope that people who feel so 
passionately about immigration will incorporate into their arguments 
the impact of trade policy on immigration.
  Mr. MICHAUD. You are absolutely right. And I would like to close by 
once again quoting former Attorney General Janet Reno, and I quote, 
``NAFTA is our best hope for reducing illegal immigration in the long 
haul. If it fails, effective immigration control will become 
impossible.''
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________