[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 27, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H632-H636]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Katko). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2015, the Speaker recognizes the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Tonko) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, we thank you for the opportunity to gather as

[[Page H633]]

Democrats in this 30-minute Special Order opportunity to discuss our 
Nation's recent free trade agreements. And I will note that 
nomenclature: free trade. There are concerns about fair trade being the 
outcome, and we will be talking about that here in this format.
  This is more important now than ever before as our United States 
Trade Representative Ambassador Michael Froman testified before the 
House and Senate today. The Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations are 
being held as we speak this week in New York City. And some Members of 
Congress have suggested a trade promotion authority bill, better 
referenced as a ``fast track,'' that may be introduced in the near 
future, a fast track that would deny the checks and balances of 
Congress, one that would not allow us to actively overview the impact 
of these negotiated settlements, these contracts, and would require a 
simple thumbs up-thumbs down vote without, again, that interactive 
quality that serves that responsibility to the Members of Congress.
  But before we give away Congress' ability to conduct proper oversight 
and review these trade agreements that are currently being negotiated, 
including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we need to discuss how free 
trade agreements from the past two decades have not delivered on their 
promises.
  These trade deals will have far-reaching impacts on American life. 
They could include impacts on food safety or perhaps affordable 
medicine or perhaps regulations with the banking industry, the 
financial industry.
  Let's not be reckless and allow these deals to move forward without 
thorough and proper consideration by Congress. Frankly, these deals 
have not lived up to the hype. President Obama indicated as much in his 
recent State of the Union message: ``I'm the first one to admit that 
past trade deals haven't always lived up to the hype.''
  So whether it was NAFTA--the North America Free Trade Agreement--or 
the Korean Free Trade Agreement, supporters of our past FTAs have 
promised these deals would create a good outcome, create United States 
jobs, create a lesser trade deficit, and improve global labor and 
global environmental standards.

                              {time}  1845

  Tragically, sadly, this has not been the outcome.
  TPP supporters have said this one will be different. The Trans-
Pacific Partnership, which could cover a great majority of the 
international economy, has its supporters saying that this will be a 
21st century agreement, far different from those that have preceded it.
  Leaked information from the TPP negotiators shows that it is being 
modeled by the negotiations, themselves, not by the negotiators, 
showing that it has been modeled on trade policies that have proven to 
offshore good-paying jobs in our economy and to force wages down for 
America's working families. That is why respected economists, including 
many who have previously supported free trade, such as Jeffrey Sachs, 
as well as Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, have 
expressed skepticism about the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiation. 
They are coming to realize what many of our constituents have long 
known: these trade agreements do not respond favorably to the American 
middle class.
  Sachs' speech at a trade forum on Capitol Hill included comments that 
indicated:

       I don't think TPP and TTIP rise close to the standard of 
     being 21st century trade and investment agreements, not even 
     close. They are very much 20th century agreements which were 
     already out of date by the time they were negotiated. This is 
     a NAFTA treaty writ large or these are the same negotiations 
     that we have had in many other cases.

  In the New York Times, Mr. Krugman indicated:

       I am, in general, a free trader, but I will be undismayed 
     and even a bit relieved if the TPP just fades away. The first 
     thing you need to know about trade deals in general is that 
     they aren't what they used to be. The glory days of trade 
     negotiations and the days of deals like the Kennedy Round of 
     the 1960s, which sharply reduced tariffs around the world, 
     are long behind us.

  Then Mr. Stiglitz, in the New York Times, is quoted as saying:

       Based on the leaks--and the history of arrangements in past 
     trade pacts--it is easy to infer the shape of the whole TPP, 
     and it doesn't look good. There is a real risk that it will 
     benefit the wealthiest sliver of the American and global 
     elite at the expense of everyone else.

  Tonight, I hope we can have a thoughtful discussion about jobs, about 
wages, about environmental standards that could be impacted, about 
child labor laws that could, perhaps, be thrust upon us that have been 
promised for every FTA in the past two decades. Sadly, our constituents 
are looking for that sort of progressive outcome that has not been 
realized, and, certainly, our workers have been impacted. I represent a 
district that is tremendously impacted by these trade negotiations.
  So, tonight, it is a pleasure to work with my colleagues in order to 
get out the message about the broken promises of our trade agreements.
  I see my good friend and colleague who has been a very passionate 
voice on speaking out about these issues. He is Tim Ryan, our 
Representative from Ohio's 13th District. Let me yield to Mr. Ryan so 
he can share some thoughts with us.
  Welcome.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Thank you so much. I want to thank the gentleman 
from New York. It is always fun to be here with you in the later 
evening hours.
  As I am listening to you talk about fair trade versus free trade and 
about some of these agreements, you have just got to go to the 
communities. I mean, this is not rocket science. Go to the communities 
that have been impacted over the last 20 or 30 years, going back to 
NAFTA and CAFTA and all of these other agreements, and look at them. 
Look at what has happened in places like Youngstown, Ohio, or in 
upstate New York or in Connecticut or up and down the east coast.
  Mr. Speaker, we have, in Ohio, several companies that, after the 
NAFTA agreement, started moving, wholesale, their manufacturing 
facilities from Warren, Ohio, or Youngstown, Ohio, to just over the 
border in Mexico--to just over the border with cheaper labor and no 
environmental or labor standards to be seen--and shipping the products 
right back over, decimating communities across Ohio, like the ones that 
we represent.
  There is a State route in Ohio, State Route 7. It goes from the lake 
all the way down the Ohio River. If you want to see what these trade 
agreements have done in the heartland, go take a ride down Route 7, 
especially the southern part. Go through Steubenville and East 
Liverpool, Ohio; go down to Portsmouth; go through Athens County, and 
you will see the erosion of what used to be the industrial might of the 
United States of America. They have eroded communities.
  The ripple effect--the job aspect of it--is of unemployed people. Now 
there is no one to support the schools. Now there is no one to support 
the mental health levy. Now there is no one to support the libraries. 
Now there is no one to throw $20 in the basket at church on Sunday. The 
ripple effect throughout these communities has decimated the middle 
class, our communities, and has reduced opportunity for our young 
people, whom we want to thrive in manufacturing in the United States.
  I don't want to see the GDP. I don't want to see numbers. I want to 
see what it is doing for average Americans and middle class people--
period, end of story. How does it help them? Drive through the 
communities, and you are going to see the evidence that we have not 
negotiated these agreements. If there is growth and if there are 
increased profits and if the stock market is going up, where is that 
money going? It is not going to the middle class people. There used to 
be middle class people in our congressional districts, and I have told 
this story before.
  We have a $1 billion steel mill that is located in Youngstown now. 
Why? The company asked us to fight to put tariffs on the dumped Chinese 
steel tubing that was coming in, and the President, to his credit, put 
the tariffs on. They built the steel mill.
  So, when you level the playing field--if you are dumping or if you 
are manipulating your currency, which is something that we have got to 
get in this agreement: real teeth into the currency manipulation 
issue--or the environment or labor, then people and companies will 
reinvest back in the United

[[Page H634]]

States, and you can reinvigorate State Route 7, going north and south 
in Ohio. To me, that is the most important part. What are we going to 
do? How are we going to write agreements? How are we going to structure 
our trade to operate in a way that draws investment into the United 
States?
  One last piece.
  The small- and medium-sized manufacturers get hammered in this. Do 
you want to be pro business? Do you want to be pro middle class, small 
business, medium-sized businesses, tool and dye makers, mom-and-pop 
manufacturers that operate in communities like ours--the people who 
treat their employees like they are family and are the ones who sponsor 
the Little League team or the soccer team? They are getting wiped out 
in these agreements, and we are not factoring them in.
  If we want a small, robust middle class, business community in the 
smaller and mid-sized cities in America, these are the kinds of things 
we need to factor in when we are operating. Yes, we have got to invest 
in roads and bridges. Yes, we have got to invest in infrastructure. We 
have got to do research. We have got to make sure that we have an 
educated, skilled workforce, and we should invest in manufacturing and 
all the rest; but the trade agreements are key. If you look at what 
Korea has done to our auto industry and to our trade deficit with 
Korea--just those two things--we have lost tens of thousands of jobs 
because of the Korea trade agreement, and our trade deficit with them 
has skyrocketed.

  The proof is in the pudding. If we want to bring back the State Route 
7s in the Ohios of America, then we need to do exactly what you are 
saying, Mr. Tonko, and what Rosa DeLauro is going to say and what 
others are going to say tonight. We need to reframe the way we talk 
about this.
  I am very thankful for the invite here, and I appreciate your passion 
and how you believe and understand we have got to do real economic 
development in upstate New York and in places like my communities. 
Thank you for being a leader on this issue.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Ryan, for bringing it right down 
to the basic, core ingredient, and that is the dignity of work for 
American families. You speak it so well for those you represent in 
Ohio.
  This is about broken promises. It is about promises for jobs, 
promises for worker opportunity, promises for environmental standards, 
promises for labor standards. We need to let the American public know 
exactly what is happening. If you are a believer in fair trade--not 
necessarily in free trade. If you believe in fair trade and if you 
don't think of fast track, which is when we circumvent the authorities 
and responsibilities of Congress, then let your voice in Congress know 
that. Let everyone know what you are thinking, because these are 
critical moments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to a good friend and colleague who is a very 
outspoken voice for social and economic justice, who has spoken to the 
unfairness of these negotiated arrangements for trade, and who has led 
us as a Democratic Caucus in this House to speak out forcefully about 
the fast-track process and about fair trade versus free trade. She is 
none other than my good friend and colleague from the Third District of 
the State of Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Thank you so much to my colleague from New York and to 
my colleague from Ohio, Tim Ryan, who is just leaving the floor, and we 
have got Wisconsin in the House with Mr. Pocan.
  Mr. Tonko, thank you for taking the lead on this effort. I can't tell 
you how proud I am to join with men and women in this body who 
understand what is going on in the lives of working families today.
  Mr. Speaker, they are struggling. We need to walk in their shoes. 
That is what our job is--to represent their interests in this body. 
What do we know? We know that, in fact, they are in jobs today that 
don't pay them enough money to survive. That is why we are organized 
and are taking on a process which can do nothing but harm them in the 
future.
  All of us who are engaged in this effort have been long supporters of 
the President's and the administration's, and we believe genuinely that 
he wants to improve the lives of working Americans; but on the issue of 
trade, I and all of us will oppose the administration because they are 
following the exact same trade policy that has failed in the past.
  The administration claims that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will 
bring jobs back to the United States, will raise our wages, but 
experience tells us that far too many trade agreements have done the 
exact opposite. The TPP is based on the same model as the Korea free 
trade agreement, negotiated just 2 years ago. Since that time, the 
United States' trade deficit with South Korea has exploded by 50 
percent. That translates into 60,000 lost jobs. This is a familiar 
picture: Korean products flood in, and American jobs flood out. When 
adjusted for inflation, our wages continue to slide.
  Princeton economist Alan Blinder estimates that as many as a quarter 
of American jobs will be offshored in the foreseeable future, and we 
know from past experience that the people who are laid off will see a 
significant drop in their wages--that is, if they are able to find 
another job.
  The trade agreements we have signed over the last 25 years have done 
nothing to ensure fair competition. Let's take one example. The deals 
have failed to address the problem, which our colleague Congressman 
Ryan mentioned, of currency manipulation. It is an unfair, artificial 
practice that has been devastating our automotive industry for a 
generation.
  Morgan Stanley estimates that currency manipulation gives each 
imported Japanese car an effective subsidy of between $1,500 and 
$5,700. That is neither free nor fair.
  Leading economist Fred Bergsten of the Peterson Institute wrote in 
Foreign Affairs just within the last several days:

       The United States has paid a major economic price for never 
     having established an effective currency manipulation policy.

  In the last Congress, 230 Members--both Republicans and Democrats--
wrote to the United States Trade Representative to demand the inclusion 
of a strong and an enforceable currency manipulation chapter in the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. So far, we have been ignored and 
dismissed. Put simply, if the agreement does not address currency 
manipulation, it will not be worth the paper that it is written on. It 
will be a green light to those who seek to compete unfairly with 
American manufacturing, and it will take away American jobs.
  The administration's arguments about jobs have failed. They know that 
experience and the numbers are against them. So, instead, as with past 
trade agreements, we hear the fallback arguments based on foreign 
policy.

                              {time}  1900

  If you listened to the Trade Representative today in the Senate 
Finance Committee, Mr. Froman, he talked about the danger of China, the 
specter of China. In the State of the Union, the President said that 
the TPP would help us counter China's growing influence. This is 
clearly not the case.
  As the economist and Reagan appointee Clyde Prestowitz pointed out in 
the Los Angeles Times last week, ``The ever-closing linking of the U.S. 
economy to those of the TPP countries over the last 35 years has not 
prevented the rise of Chinese power.''
  He continued, ``nor has it deterred U.S. trade partners and allies 
from developing ever closer ties with China.''
  They will not stop doing so just because we sign a trade agreement. 
In reality, the argument about China is nothing more than an attempt to 
distract the American public with scare tactics and that we are going 
to take on China. The administration should be above this kind of fear-
mongering.
  Throughout this process, the administration has chosen not to consult 
the Congress fully. Members of Congress have been denied access to the 
full text of the agreement. The American people have been cut out of 
the negotiation; yet in the State of the Union, the President asked the 
Congress for fast-track promotion authority.
  A key part of granting that authority has always been the negotiating 
guidelines that Congress gives to the administration. That is our job--
to provide the negotiating guidelines--but the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership has already been under negotiations for years, first under 
President Bush and now under President Obama.

[[Page H635]]

  Earlier today, the U.S. Trade Representative told our colleagues in 
the Senate that he expected a deal ``in the next small number of 
months.'' How can the Congress give guidance on a deal that we have 
never seen, a deal that is, for all intents and purposes, already done?
  Once again, we see fast track for what it really is. It is an attempt 
to cut the Congress out of the process altogether. We should not stand 
for this, and when we get that fast-track bill, we should vote it down. 
Bitter experience tells us that bad trade deals devastate jobs, 
devastate wages. That is why we should say ``no'' to this deeply flawed 
Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  I can't thank you enough for taking on this job of being here at 7 at 
night, all of us together, to say ``no.'' I think what we want to 
convey to the American public is that we are committed to work on their 
behalf and to make sure that they have a decent shot at a decent job 
with good wages.
  Thank you so much, Mr. Tonko, for listening.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative DeLauro. You strike a very 
encouraging cord at the end of your comments.
  The American public needs to be engaged, if you believe that Congress 
should have overview responsibility, a checks and balances agenda, 
because these agreements need to be front and center about the well-
being of American workers, and so call into this process, reach into 
this process, and share your opinion with those who speak for you in 
the House.
  Is a fast track a thing you want to see--without the information 
exchange--or do you want Congress to review these contracts and 
understand what impact there will be on the American economy, on 
American jobs, on standards for the environment, for public safety, for 
child labor laws, a number of things?
  We appreciate your comments.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I would just make one other point. So many years ago, 
when we were discussing the Affordable Care Act, the American public 
said: Read the bill.
  That is what we are asking to do, very simply, to read the bill 
before we vote on it.
  Mr. TONKO. Very well stated. Every bit of American style is about 
tethering the American Dream. The people come here to have the right to 
the dignity of work and to pursue that American Dream.
  One of our newest faces in Congress in his second term, I believe, 
has been an outspoken voice for the American Dream. I yield to the 
Representative from Wisconsin's Second District to share his thoughts 
about the process here for fast track and free versus fair trade.
  Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Tonko, for your leadership. I 
really enjoyed working with you over the last several years. We are 
actually getting to the point that it looks like this may be coming to 
a vote in Congress.
  This is perfect timing, with another round of negotiations upon us. I 
am so glad we are on the floor tonight talking about this and trying to 
channel the energy from the gentlewoman from Connecticut. I love her 
passion.
  This is an issue that goes far back for me. When I was 23, I started 
a small business in Madison, Wisconsin, a specialty printing business. 
One of the things we did is source American-made and union-made 
products. We screen-printed T-shirts and did promotional items like 
pens and lapel pins we wear as Members of Congress, all things that 
were done in the United States.
  Over the last almost 28 years, trade deal after trade deal, I have 
watched the number of products made in the United States diminish. T-
shirts, it is almost impossible to find a mill that still makes T-
shirts and apparel in the United States. Almost everything is done in 
other countries or overseas, things like pens and our emblem pins. It 
is almost impossible to find American-made pens.
  In my area, just 45 minutes south from Madison, is the city of 
Janesville, where Representative Paul Ryan is from and represents. That 
town used to have a thousand good, family-supporting wages at a company 
called Parker Pen which made quality, American-made pens. At one point, 
that was a thousand jobs in that region.
  With trade deal after trade deal, finally, a few years ago, we 
watched the last 150 of those jobs go to Mexico, those family-
supporting wages that no longer exist in the company. They were then 
hit by GM closing down, which allowed even further job loss in that 
community.
  As Representative DeLauro said, it is those people that used to make 
$25 an hour in a manufacturing job who lost their job and, now, the 
best that might be available to them is a $10-an-hour job. You can't 
pay your mortgage when you go from $25 an hour to $10 an hour. You 
can't send your kids to college when you used to make $25 an hour and, 
now, you are making $10 an hour.
  Those are the jobs we have seen all too often leave because of bad 
trade deals; whether it be New York, Connecticut, Ohio, or Wisconsin, 
we have all seen the same thing happen across our communities.
  As much as I do agree with the President when he said in the State of 
the Union, Look, I'm the first one to admit that past trade deals 
haven't always lived up to the hype--I think we all agree on that. We 
have seen that. We have seen that the jobs promised don't happen, and 
that is why we have concern.
  Tonight, I want to talk specifically about fast-track authority. That 
is where we give up our right as Members of Congress, which means we 
give up our constituents' right--a say--in these trade deals. This 
isn't a Democratic issue. It isn't a Republican issue. It isn't an 
Independent issue. It is in the Constitution. Article I, section 8 of 
the Constitution says the Congress has the sole power ``to regulate 
commerce with foreign nations.''

  For 200 years, that is the way it was, but President Nixon changed 
that when he seized those powers through a mechanism called fast track. 
It is a legislative technique used to kind of skid the way through for 
these trade deals.
  The problem with that is when we do fast-track authority, we give up 
our rights as Members of Congress and, therefore, the public's right to 
question what is in one of these trade deals, the next trade deal that 
can have even more jobs leave the United States.
  We give up our ability to debate and to amend these agreements, and 
that is what fast-track authority is. That is very likely the first 
vote we would see on the floor of Congress, which the President asked 
for in the State of the Union, but that gives our sole authority to the 
President.
  Now, I have a lot of respect and I agree with so much of what 
President Obama has done, but this isn't about President Obama, and it 
is not about President George W. Bush and not about President Nixon or 
any other President who has tried to get these powers. It is about our 
ability as Members of Congress and the public to have a say through 
these trade deals.
  When you look at this and you think about the history of the fast-
track process, the last time we authorized fast track was in 2002, at 
3:30 in the morning, right before a congressional recess, to bring this 
antiquated mechanism into place, and it was approved by only three 
votes.
  Since 2007, Congress has refused this extreme procedure, even after 
it was getting renamed to try to make it sound a little more palatable.
  There are so many reasons why we shouldn't give up our authority. If 
you think about it, people say: If we don't give the President 
authority, we won't get trade expansion.
  Well, fast track isn't needed for that. In fact, President Bill 
Clinton was denied fast-track authority for 6 of his 8 years in his 
office, but he completed more than 100 trade investment pacts without 
fast track.
  We are giving away our ability to actually see this document which, 
as you know, we haven't seen. There are 29 chapters, only of which 
about five affect trade, and everything else from currency manipulation 
to medicines to food safety, all those things now are thrown into these 
deals that go way beyond what it was originally in place for, and we 
would have no say in that.
  Fast track has been used 16 times in the history of this country, and 
usually, it is to enact more controversial trade pacts.
  Bottom line, we know that the U.S. Trade Representative right now is 
redoing their Web site to make it more transparent. Here is 
transparency to

[[Page H636]]

me: show us the text, show Members of Congress the text, show our staff 
the text, show the public the text.
  If this deal is as good as they have promised, then show us how great 
it is; but if this is nothing more than warmed over fast track or 
something else that is going to cost us jobs and depress our wages, 
then that is usually when this procedure is put in place. No offense to 
this President or to any President, but Congress has to have its say on 
fast track.
  I just want to commend you, again, for doing this. I just wanted to 
come by for a very few minutes to talk about that, but as this 
procedure could be coming before us in the coming month or months, we 
have to be ready.
  We are going to work together, as we have been, to make sure we do 
everything possible to make sure the public knows what is in this deal, 
and that means Congress has to have our say, and that is why we have to 
oppose fast track.
  Again, I thank the gentleman for this time. I continue to look 
forward to working with you on this issue.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Pocan. I again urge the general 
public out there to engage in this process. Let your Representative 
know if you believe we should have overview authority and that we 
should have the chance to know what is in these negotiated agreements.
  This affects our American economy, the American Dream. It is about 
jobs. It is about wages. It is about critical labor standards. It is 
about critical environmental standards. We can make it happen. We can 
work on trade issues and have fair trade out there that will grow our 
economy and grow the American Dream for America's working families.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________