[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 25324-25325]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              TRADE POLICY

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, our Nation's haphazard trade policy has 
done plenty of damage to Ohio's economy, to our workers, to our 
manufacturers, and to our small businesses. Recent news reports of 
tainted foods and toxic toys reveal another hazard of ill-conceived and 
unenforced trade rules. They subject American families and children to 
products that can harm them, that in some cases have even killed them.
  From pet food to toothpaste, from tires to toys, news stories almost 
every day highlight the consequences of our Nation's failed trade 
policy. Countries such as China lack basic protections we have come to 
take for granted. Given the well-known dangers of lead, particularly 
for young children, our Government banned it from products such as 
gasoline and paint in the 1970s. Yet our trade policy is turning back 
the clock on the hard-fought safety standards that keep our families 
and our children safe.
  What happens should come as no surprise. When we trade the way we do, 
when we bought $288 billion of products from the People's Republic of 
China last year and $288 billion this year--it will probably exceed 
$300 billion--and we are trading with a country that doesn't have close 
to the same safety standards for its own workers or safe air or 
drinking water standards for its own water, why would we expect them to 
sell safe products to our country?
  It is compounded by the fact that companies, such as Mattel say to 
the Chinese contractors: We want you to cut costs. Lead paint? Use it; 
it is cheaper. Cut corners so we can save money.
  It is no surprise because American corporations have pushed the 
Chinese to cut costs, and at the same time China doesn't have fair 
labor standards, clean air, and safe drinking water standards for their 
own people. Of course they are going to sell products back to our 
country such as contaminated toothpaste and pet food and dangerous toys 
with lead-based paint on those products.
  Our trade policy should prevent these problems, not invite them. 
Despite the real and present danger from Chinese imports, we must not 
focus solely on consumer threats from China. The real threat is our 
failed trade policy that allows recall after recall. The real threat is 
our failure to change course and craft a new, very different trade 
policy. The real threat is this administration's insistence on more of 
the same--more trade pacts that send U.S. jobs overseas, more trade 
pacts that allow companies and countries to ignore the rules of fair 
trade, more trade pacts that will mean more tainted products in our 
homes, more dangerous toys for our children, and more recalls for our 
businesses.
  The administration and its free-trade supporters in Congress are 
gearing up for another trade fight. They want to force on our Nation--a 
nation that in November, in Montana, Ohio, and

[[Page 25325]]

across the country, demanded change--more job-killing trade agreements 
with unreliable standards. Free-trade agreements with Peru, Panama, 
Colombia, and South Korea currently being debated in Congress are based 
on the same failed trade model.
  This week, the Peru trade agreement is at the forefront of the debate 
between fundamentally flawed trade models--more of the same--and the 
fight for fair trade. We want more trade, plenty of trade; we just want 
fair trade, different rules.
  The Peru free-trade agreement, like NAFTA, while it has some 
improvements over that, puts limits on the safety standards we can 
require for imports. FDA inspectors have rejected seafood imports from 
Peru and Panama--major seafood suppliers to the United States. Yet the 
current trade agreement, as proposed--the Bush administration's Peru 
and Panama agreements--limits food safety standards and border 
inspections. What has happened already is where, frankly, we have 
bought too many contaminated products, contaminated seafood imports, 
and whatever problems we have, this trade agreement will make it worse 
because this agreement will limit our own food safety standards and 
border inspections. Adding insult to injury, the agreements would force 
the United States to rely on foreign inspectors to ensure our safety. 
We have seen how well that worked with China.
  It is time for a new direction in trade policy. It is time for a 
trade policy that ensures the safety of food on our kitchen tables and 
toys in our children's bedrooms. It is time for a trade policy that 
creates new businesses and good-paying jobs at home instead of a trade 
policy that encourages companies to outsource and move overseas. It is 
time for a trade policy that puts an end to the global exploitation of 
cheap labor.
  The voters in November shouted from the ballot box, demanding a new 
trade policy. Their resounding call for a new trade policy put Members 
of Congress on notice that their trade votes in Washington matter to 
voters back home.
  With Peru, Panama, Colombia, and South Korea, voters in my State of 
Ohio and across the Nation are watching these trade debates. Everyone 
agrees on one thing: We want more trade with countries around the 
world, but first we must protect the safety and the health of our 
families and our children.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas is 
recognized.

                          ____________________