[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15562-15564]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              TRADE POLICY

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, it is pretty clear, as we survey the 
landscape around our great country, what has happened to manufacturing 
jobs and what has happened to our economy. Over and over, in my State 
of Ohio, I know, and Senator Stabenow's State of Michigan, we have seen 
huge job losses, especially in manufacturing. In my State, since 2000, 
Ohio has lost 1,800 manufacturing companies, more than 200,000 jobs 
with average wages of $48,000, according to the Northeast Ohio Campaign 
for American Manufacturing. We also know that American workers, when it 
is a level playing field, can outcompete workers, can outcompete small 
businesses, can outcompete companies all over the world--when there is 
a level playing field.
  Last week, Senator Stabenow and others participated in a 
manufacturing summit. She brought leaders of small businesses and large 
manufacturers to the Nation's Capitol with labor leaders and other 
people who care about manufacturing. We discussed how we remain 
competitive, how we shape trade policies to help not hurt our small- 
and medium-sized manufacturers. At that summit, an Ohio businessman 
named John Colm walked up to me with a stack of fliers. They were 
auction notices. He had received 47 of them in the last 4 months. These 
notices were for ``going out of business'' sales; they were companies 
selling off assets, in essence cannibalizing their companies, selling 
their machinery at rock-bottom prices--all that this manufacturing 
crisis has done to small manufacturers and large manufacturers but 
especially small companies in our communities.
  We also know how U.S. trade policy has failed American business, 
especially small business, especially small manufacturers. We know the 
year I first ran for Congress, in 1992, we had a trade deficit in this 
country of $38 billion. Today our trade deficit, whether you count 
services or not, exceeds either $700 billion or $800 billion--from $38 
billion to $700 billion to $800 billion in a decade and a half. Our 
trade deficit with China went from low double digits a decade and a 
half ago to somewhere in the vicinity of $250 billion today.
  President Bush, Sr., the first President Bush, said for every $1 
billion in trade deficit, it costs a country somewhere in the vicinity 
of 13,000 jobs. You do the math and you figure how many jobs we have 
lost, in part, because of our trade policy.
  The response of the administration is: Let's do more of these trade 
agreements. We have already had NAFTA, we have already had PNTR with 
China, we have already had CAFTA and Singapore and Chile and Morocco 
and Jordan; let's do more, let's do a trade agreement with Panama, 
let's do one with Peru, let's do one with Colombia, let's do one with 
South Korea. The fact is, this trade policy is the wrong direction for 
our country.
  In elections last fall, where Senator Stabenow, who has been a leader 
on trade and manufacturing, was reelected with a huge margin in a State 
that has been devastated by bad trade policies; in my State, and 
Senator Webb's, Senator Sanders', Senator Tester's, the Presiding 
Officer's, and Senator Cardin's--in all of our States, the voters spoke 
loudly and clearly that our trade policy has failed our middle class. 
Our trade policy has failed small business. Our trade policy has failed 
our communities. When a company shuts down with 300 workers in 
Steubenville or Lima or Dayton or Finley--when a company shuts down, it 
devastates a community. It means schoolteachers are laid off, police 
and firefighters are laid off. It means people are not as safe in their 
communities as their economy deteriorates.
  I will close and turn the podium over to Senator Stabenow with a 
brief mention of energy. Senator Reid, the majority leader, spoke about 
energy. He spoke about Democratic accomplishments today and talked 
about the energy bill coming up. I wish to illustrate, for a moment, 
how energy policy can matter and make a difference in manufacturing. At 
Oberlin College, a community not too far from where I live, between 
Cleveland and Toledo, on the campus of Oberlin College is located the 
largest building on any college campus in America that is fully powered 
by solar energy. When speaking to David Orr, the professor who helped 
raise the money to build this building, he told me the solar panels 
that power this building at Oberlin College--a whole roof, a large 
expanse of roof or solar panels--they were bought in Germany and Japan 
because we don't make enough of them. Go west of there, where the 
University of Toledo is doing some of the best wind turbine research in 
the country. Yet we are not building the turbines and the components 
and the solar panels and solar cells in this country. This Energy bill 
we will discuss today, this week and next week, coupled with a real 
manufacturing policy as Senator Stabenow has articulated over the last 
several years, can mean more good-paying industrial manufacturing jobs 
in our country, can help to stabilize energy prices, and can make a 
difference in rebuilding the middle class in Ohio, Michigan, North 
Dakota--all over this country.
  I yield the floor to Senator Stabenow and thank her for her 
leadership.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, thank you to my colleague from Ohio. It 
is so wonderful to have this strong voice, a leader in the House of 
Representatives on trade and manufacturing and all the issues that 
affect middle-class families and to now have Senator Brown joining us 
in the Senate. It is such a benefit for all of us who care deeply about 
keeping the middle class in this country, about making sure we move 
forward with a 21st century manufacturing strategy that works for our 
country in a global economy. I thank the Senator from Ohio for his 
words and also join with him and with our wonderful colleague from 
North Dakota who has been such a champion on issues of fair trade.
  First, I will start by reinforcing what has been happening to 
manufacturing in the last 6\1/2\ years. In this country, we have lost 
over 3 million manufacturing jobs. Why should we care about 3 million 
jobs that people raised their kids on, sent them to college--middle- 
class families with good jobs, good incomes, with health care, with 
pensions? These are the jobs that have created the middle class of this 
country. That is not rhetoric. That is a fact.
  These are those kinds of jobs, even though they are different. This 
is not your father's factory. These are new, advanced technology 
manufacturing jobs now that are being created. But in the future these 
are needed if we are going to keep the middle class of this country. 
That is why we are on the floor of the Senate, to express deep concern 
about the incredibly poor judgment and lack of attention coming from 
this administration and coming, in general, from those all together 
making policy that relates to trade and how we compete in a global 
economy.
  We have to pay attention before it is too late, before we lose our 
economic competitiveness in a global economy, our ability to make 
things.
  I believe any economy is based on the ability to make things and grow 
things and add value to that. We have to have a strong, vibrant 
manufacturing economy in order to be able to move forward and compete 
around the globe now.
  We did hold a manufacturing summit, I think the first of its kind in 
the Senate, last week. I was very proud

[[Page 15563]]

that Senator Reid, our leader, enthusiastically supported us bringing 
together 70 different CEOs and high-ranking manufacturing leaders, as 
well as those representing their labor force, their unions, to come 
together and talk about what has happened in manufacturing and how we 
in the Senate can be supportive of keeping manufacturing competitive--a 
level playing field, which is all we are asking for in a global 
economy.
  We heard some desperate pleas for us to pay attention to what is 
going on. Over and over again these CEO's talked with us about the fact 
that in a global economy, now competing with nonmarket economies such 
as China, they in fact are not competing with companies, they are 
competing with countries. We go out in the marketplace. There are rules 
required of our companies to be able to put a plant in another country 
or have local content in China with auto suppliers. You can't send it 
in and do business with China. You have to make the product there. 
Their country owns part of the business or provides great incentives, 
through a variety of other policies. Yet we are not paying attention. 
Unfortunately, this administration has not gotten what is happening 
when we talk about currency manipulation and counterfeiting and all the 
other policy issues that have put our companies at a disadvantage.
  We are happy to export in a global economy. We wish to export our 
products, not our jobs. Right now we are exporting too many of our 
jobs.
  What is the reality? When China went into the WTO in 2001, we were 
told two things: our trade deficit would go down and that our jobs 
would go up. Unfortunately, the facts are exactly the opposite; a $83 
billion trade deficit with China. Last year that number skyrocketed to 
$288 billion, from $83 billion to $288 billion. It is certainly not 
going down. We have seen the Economic Policy Institute release a study 
2 weeks ago that revealed 1.8 million jobs have been displaced through 
trade with China alone since they entered the World Trade Organization. 
They promised they would follow the rules. That is part of how you 
become part of the WTO. We were told: Support them so they can become a 
part of this international organization, where they will be required to 
follow the same rules as everybody else. They have not and we have 
lost, with China alone, 1.8 million good-paying, middle-class jobs.
  It is now time to say enough is enough. In fact, 11 agreements have 
been completed since this administration, new trade agreements. Yet to 
enforce the agreements, the money has actually gone down by 17 percent. 
There is no willingness to understand what is going on.
  In the counterfeiting business, we have a $12 billion counterfeit 
auto parts industry alone. What does that mean? These are auto parts 
coming in that do not meet our safety standards. The brakes may look 
the same, but if you go to a shelf and say I want this one because it 
is cheaper and put it in your car, it doesn't meet safety regulations. 
What happens when you are driving with your kids in the car? These are 
serious issues for what happens when auto parts are brought in, in a 
counterfeit manner.
  Now, $12 billion worth of counterfeit auto parts have come in. In 
fact, in the last 5 years, we have lost 250,000 jobs in America because 
of that, and we have seen six of our Nation's largest auto suppliers go 
into bankruptcy. This is no accident. We don't have a policy. We 
passed, here, a counterfeit policy to strengthen our counterfeiting 
laws and the administration doesn't even use those. They have turned a 
blind eye. We have lost 250,000 jobs. We have seen our largest auto 
suppliers going into bankruptcy--Delphi, Dana Corp., Collins & Aikman, 
Federal-Mogul, Tower Automotive, and Dura Automotive.
  Our job is to fight for our businesses that are competing in a global 
economy where other countries are not following the rules.
  Let me give one other example, and I will be happy to turn to my 
colleague from North Dakota, the issue of currency manipulation. When 
we say currency manipulation, most people's eyes glaze over. What does 
that mean? Because a country such as China or Japan, when it comes to 
the auto industry, purposely keeps their currency down in value, they 
get a discount on the exchange rate when they bring their product into 
this country. In China, for instance, again, where we look at an auto 
part, the same auto parts that are being pirated, snuck into America or 
they are stealing the patents and making them illegally in China--if 
they actually bring them in, they also, on top of everything else, get 
a discount. They can sell the same auto part, the same bolt for $60 
that we sell for $100 here, a $40 difference.
  When you add that up, that is a $40 discount. On top of that, they 
are not paying health care the way we structure it. We are the only 
industrialized country that puts that on the backs of our businesses.
  They are following a whole different set of rules. Their wages are 
dramatically lower. When we say to our auto suppliers or we say to our 
furniture makers or we say to others: Why can't you compete in a global 
economy, well, Mr. President, the manufacturers who joined us last 
week, and the great manufacturers in Michigan I go home and speak with 
every single weekend are saying: Look around you. We are competitive. 
We can be competitive. We are productive, but we have to have a Federal 
Government that partners with us so we have a level playing field on 
which to operate. Don't let the other team go down to the 20-yard line 
toward the goal. Put us both on the 50, have the level playing field, 
and we will compete with anybody and American ingenuity and hard work 
will win. That is what fair trade policies are all about.
  I yield now to my colleague from North Dakota who comes to the floor 
every day speaking out on these issues and who has been a powerful 
voice for American workers and free trade.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my colleagues for 
their strong voice on trade.
  I note this morning in the Washington Post that they have written one 
more ``don't confuse us with the facts'' editorial on trade. It is a 
creed that we see often in this newspaper. And this one is under the 
guise of criticizing Senator Clinton for saying that she opposes the 
United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement.
  In fact, let me read a part of the article. It says: If ratified, 
this Korean free-trade agreement, would be the most far-reaching trade 
agreement since the pact with Mexico and Canada.
  Oh, really? Well, the pact with Mexico, we actually negotiated that 
when we had a trade surplus with Mexico. We have turned that into a $60 
billion-a-year deficit. The trade with Canada, we had a small deficit 
with Canada. We have turned it into a giant deficit.
  So if the Washington Post compares this with the NAFTA and the Mexico 
and Canada trade pacts, they ought to go back and look at the facts.
  But let me just say, if they choose to applaud this trade agreement 
as the ideal of what trade agreements ought to be like, I think they 
have chosen the wrong tent pole.
  Here is what is happening with trade. This is what the Washington 
Post is supporting: an avalanche of red ink, dramatic trade deficits, 
which means we have shipped American jobs overseas. I believe we have 
begun to undermine this country's economy.
  With respect to automobile trade and Korea and this agreement, let me 
say we have already negotiated two agreements with Korea in the 1990s. 
They have not abided by either of them. They say: Yes, yes, yes. They 
sign up for the agreement, and they do not do anything with respect to 
the enforcement.
  Here is what we have with Korea. Last year, they sent us 730,000 
Korean cars to be sold in the United States. Guess what. We were able 
to sell 4,000 cars in Korea. Let me say that again. They shipped 
730,000 cars to be sold

[[Page 15564]]

here. We were able to sell 4,000 cars in Korea.
  Fair trade? I don't think so. Ninety-nine percent of the cars driving 
on the streets of Korea are Korean-made because that is the way they 
want it. That is the way they will keep it. Go read the story about the 
Dodge Dakota pickup that we tried to sell in Korea, and how the Korean 
government blocked that. You will know all you need to know about Korea 
auto trade.
  So when the Washington Post criticizes Senator Clinton for standing 
up for this country's economic interests, I think it is a curious kind 
of thing for the Washington Post to do.
  This issue of trade is about jobs, real jobs. And the people who have 
those jobs are the people who know about second shifts, second jobs, 
second mortgages. They are American workers trying to make a go of it 
in a global economy, supported by the Washington Post, that puts 
downward pressure on their wages, and says let's sign up for any trade 
agreement, even if it is unfair to this country's economic interests.
  A group of us proposed that we do benchmarks with trade agreements. 
Let's find out whether there is the kind of benchmark and 
accountability that will meet the test of progress on the other side 
with respect to trade agreements. But this administration opposes that 
as well.
  The reason I wanted to take the floor today was to talk about the 
Korean free-trade agreement. We could talk about most others, as well, 
but the editorial this morning criticizing Senator Clinton is 
unbelievable, and deals with the Korean deal.
  This is the weakest possible point the Washington Post could make, or 
those who support these trade agreements could make. The Koreans send 
us 700,000 cars. They will allow only 4,000 of ours into their 
marketplace. That is fair trade? So they say, let's sign up for a third 
agreement with them. How many bitter lessons do we have to learn? What 
about accountability? What about benchmarks? Why won't this 
administration agree to benchmarks on trade agreements so that we can 
see whether we really are standing up for this country's economic 
interests?
  Mr. President, in my judgment, it is not just the Washington Post but 
so many others here I think are experiencing a triumph of hope over 
real experience when they support trade agreements that we know to be 
bad agreements from this country's economic standpoint.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Jersey.

                          ____________________