[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13545-13552]
[From the U.S. 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 
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

[[Page 13546]]

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.
  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 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

[[Page 13547]]

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 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

[[Page 13548]]

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 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.

[[Page 13549]]

  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

[[Page 13550]]

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 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,

[[Page 13551]]

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.
  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

[[Page 13552]]

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.

                          ____________________