[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2942-2944]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       AMERICA'S ECONOMIC HEALTH

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, earlier this week the President traveled 
to Peoria, IL, and yesterday to Wall Street and delivered speeches that 
painted a remarkably rosy picture of our economy. He praised current 
U.S. trade policy, applauding his evidence of success, the increase in 
global free-trade agreements since taking office. I have to say that I, 
along with millions of middle-class families in Ohio, in Missouri, all 
over this country, had to wonder what part of the country he was 
talking about. In my State of Ohio, in Steubenville, in Youngstown, 
Toledo, Columbus, and Dayton, more than 180,000 manufacturing workers 
lost their jobs in the time the President has been in the White House.
  The President was right about one thing: Productivity is up, and that 
is a testament to our Nation's hard-working and skilled labor force. 
Far too often, our Nation's workers do not share in the wealth they 
create. Our small businesses can't compete against the multinational 
corporations that exploit cheap labor abroad. Our Nation's history is 
all about workers. As their productivity increases, they share in the 
wealth they create for their employers, creating a middle class, 
creating a rising standard of living.
  The President also talked about wage increases for workers, but I am 
afraid that is where he lost us again. I would invite the President to 
sit down with a steelworker in Steubenville or a machinist in Toledo or 
a small tool-and-die shop owner in Dayton. Workers are not seeing their 
wages increase, nor are they seeing new job opportunities. Employers 
are not seeing trade policies that level the playing field. Our 
economic values are skewed toward a very select few in this country.
  While it is true the President has pushed 10 free-trade agreements 
through the negotiation process, he has done so using a fundamentally 
flawed trade model. More of the same in this case is not such a good 
thing.
  What the President did not say during his speech was that trade 
negotiations are falling apart. The Central American Free Trade 
Agreement pushed through the House of Representatives by one vote in 
the middle of the night still has not been fully implemented. The 
subsequent Andean Free Trade Agreement fell apart before it even began. 
Two years ago, thousands of workers in Central America took to the 
streets protesting this failed trade policy. Last week, tens of 
thousands of workers in Korea took to the streets protesting a pending 
free-trade agreement with our country. Why? Again, because the 
administration continues to use a failed trade model for these 
agreements. Revamping U.S. trade policy is not just about taking better 
hold of our economic health; it is about establishing priorities in 
Washington that reflect family values at home and building strong 
relationships with trading partners abroad.
  While the administration continues to be out of touch with Main 
Street, I am pleased to say that finally in this Congress there is a 
bipartisan fair trade effort underway. I am working with Democratic 
Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Republican Senator Lindsey 
Graham of South Carolina on a new direction for trade policy. It is not 
a question of if we trade but how we trade and who, in fact, benefits 
from trade.
  While discussing the minimum wage this week, Senator Kennedy used 
these charts to illustrate the development over time of drastic 
economic inequality in our country. From 1946 to 1973, economic 
opportunities for poor and working families grew. The lowest 20 percent 
actually had higher growth, percentagewise, than the top 20 percent in 
this country. The families who worked hard and played by the rules had 
a real chance of getting ahead.
  From 1973 to 2000, things began to change dramatically. From 1973 to 
2000, the lowest 20 percent had the lowest growth in their incomes; the 
top 20 percent had the fastest growth. It so happened in the year 1973, 
two things happened: the oil embargo, with the price of oil shooting 
up; second, 1973 was the year when the United States, historically with 
trade surpluses, fell into trade deficits, and we have been in trade 
deficit ever since 1973.
  If we look again at this chart, from 1946 to 1973, for 26 years, 
economic growth was shared equally, with the lowest 20 percent actually 
growing at the fastest rate and the top 20 percent at the lowest rate. 
Since 1973, when our country went from persistent trade surpluses to 
persistent trade deficits, growing more and more and more every year, 
the lowest 20 percent now have the lowest growth rate, by far. The 
highest top 20 percent have the fastest growth rate, by far.
  We should also look at what has happened to the trade deficit. In 
1972, the year I first ran for Congress, our country had a $38 billion 
trade deficit. In 2006, when the numbers are finalized, our trade 
deficit will exceed $800 billion. We went from a $38 billion to a $800 
billion trade deficit. As President Bush first pointed out, back in 
1989-1990, $1 billion in trade deficit or trade surplus translates into 
13,000 jobs. So do the math: $1 billion in trade deficit translates 
into 13,000 lost jobs. Our trade deficit is now $800 billion for the 
year 2006. Our trade deficit with China in 1992, the year I first ran 
for the House of Representatives, our trade deficit with China was 
barely into the double digits. Today our trade deficit with China has 
reached about $250 billion.
  It is clear our trade policy has failed. We have given countries such 
as China, countries that exploit sweatshop labor and manipulate their 
currency, an unfair and unnecessary advantage.
  If trade agreements can be crafted to protect drug patents and drug 
companies, those same trade agreements can protect the environment. If 
trade agreements can be crafted to protect international property 
rights and Hollywood films, the same trade agreements can protect 
workers, small American businesses and our communities.
  Current U.S. trade policy allows for the inhumane exploitation of 
foreign workers; it exacerbates job losses in places such as Lima and 
Zanesville, OH. It puts local businesses--particularly small tool and 
die, machine shops, small manufacturers--at an unfair disadvantage, 
forcing thousands of them to close, as large corporations move to 
Mexico, China, and elsewhere overseas.
  In my home State of Ohio, more than 40,000 jobs have been lost to 
China in the last decade, allowing foreign companies to pay slave 
wages, to abuse their workers, and to lie about their

[[Page 2943]]

business practices hurts Americans. It hurts American workers. It hurts 
American businesses.
  This country is already hard at work to change our trade policy to 
promote fair trade that works for U.S. businesses. We want trade 
defined differently. We want different trade practices. We want trade 
that will help small business, that will help workers, and that will 
stem the exploitation of workers in developing nations.
  No longer are Democrats and Republicans in Congress going to stand 
idly by while businesses and workers in Ohio, businesses and workers in 
places such as Gallipolis and Springfield and Lima are penalized for 
playing by the rules.
  In the last Congress, we changed the debate on trade. In this 
Congress, we will change the face of trade.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask to speak for up to 10 minutes as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, as we anticipate the beginning of the 
discussion and debate with respect to the future of the involvement of 
the United States in Iraq, it is important for Members always in this 
Chamber to remember we are all unified in honoring the men and women 
who serve in the Armed Forces and those men and women who continue to 
fight in Iraq with such bravery and such valor that we cannot forget 
what they do. Every Member in the Senate honors the sacrifice which our 
troops and their families have made over the past 4 years. That 
sacrifice will not, cannot, and will never be forgotten.
  It is also important to remember that no matter how contentious the 
debate might become in the weeks and months ahead, every Senator shares 
the same basic goals: The goal is simply peace and stability in the 
Middle East and a safe return of our troops to their homeland.
  We may disagree on the best path to the end. It is important to 
remember what binds us together as America so we will not be torn too 
far apart and we can help end the divisiveness which has occurred in 
our country over this issue and move forward in a bipartisan way to 
restore the greatness of America in the world.
  It is my hope the anticipated debate that will occur will be with a 
spirit of bipartisanship and with a spirit of civility. I am especially 
pleased we have arrived at a bipartisan resolution which plainly states 
Congress does, in fact, support a new direction in Iraq. I commend the 
efforts of the bipartisan group of Senators who worked together to 
provide a positive framework for protecting our national security, 
supporting our troops, and defining our mission in Iraq. That 
compromise resolution reflects the will of the American people that we 
must, in fact, chart a new course of success in Iraq.
  I especially commend the leadership and the great efforts of Senator 
Warner, Senator Nelson, Senator Collins, Senator Levin, Senator Biden, 
Senator Hagel, and others who have been involved in this effort over 
the last several days.
  Until now, the debate over our mission in Iraq has been dominated by 
essentially what has been a false choice. On the one hand, we have had 
before Congress and before the American people plan A, which is the 
President's plan, which essentially has been to say, stay the course, 
plus, add another 21,500 troops into the fight in Baghdad. This would 
be a mistake. It would put more American troops into the middle of a 
civil war and places too much faith in what has been, to us, an 
incompetent Iraqi Government that has failed to do its work in securing 
the peace for its people and their country.
  On the other hand, we have plan B, which is advocated by some Members 
of Congress, both in the House and this Senate, which calls for a more 
or less precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. From my point of view, this, 
too, is a bad choice. It could open the door to even more bloodshed and 
to a dangerous regionwide military escalation not only in Iraq but 
throughout the Middle East.
  In my view, what we need is a plan C. That plan C should reflect the 
bipartisan opposition to the President's proposal to send an additional 
21,500 troops to Iraq and also propose an alternative strategy for 
success in Iraq. That is exactly what we have accomplished with this 
compromise resolution which would make clear the following: First, that 
a bipartisan majority of Senators disagrees with the President's plan 
to increase the number of United States troops in Iraq as he has 
proposed; second, that the primary objective of a United States 
strategy in Iraq should be to encourage the Iraqi leaders to make the 
political compromises that are necessary to improve security, foster 
reconciliation, strengthen the Government, and end the violence; third, 
that the United States has an important role to play in helping to 
maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq, conducting counterterrorism 
activities, promoting regional stability and training and equipping the 
Iraqi troops; and, finally, that the United States should engage the 
nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally 
sponsored peace and reconciliation diplomatic process and initiative 
within Iraq and throughout the region.
  I will briefly elaborate on some of these points. The President's 
plan to simply surge or increase the number of troops in Iraq by 21,500 
would be a mistake. First, the violence in Iraq is becoming 
increasingly sectarian, even intrasectarian. I worry that the American 
troops we are sending there are being placed in what is the midst of a 
civil war.
  Second, I also worry that the larger American military presence will 
discourage the Iraqis from taking responsibility for their own 
security. As General John Abizaid said in this Capitol last November:

       . . . it's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this 
     work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis 
     from taking more responsibility for their own future.

  As we enter the debate over the next several days and weeks in this 
Senate, we should not forget those words:

       I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from 
     taking more responsibility for their own future.

  Furthermore, I am concerned that the plan places too much faith in 
the present Iraqi Government, which has so far shown little willingness 
to make the difficult decisions necessary to stop the bloodshed and the 
violence within their own country.
  Finally, we have recent experience where the additional troops who 
have been sent into Iraq indicate that the results of those operations 
of the last 7 to 8 months have not been successful. Last year, we tried 
two separate surges--one was named Operation Together Forward I and the 
other was Operation Together Forward II--and neither stopped or slowed 
the violence in Iraq.
  In fact, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group found that the violence had 
escalated during that same time period by 43 percent.
  Adding to this is all the additional strain that a troop increase 
will place on our service men and women and their families.
  For these reasons, I oppose the President's plan to increase our 
troop presence in Iraq. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the resolution 
that will be before this Senate. This resolution is more than about 
opposing the President's plan. It proposes a new strategy by calling 
for an enhanced diplomatic effort, a new focus on maintaining the 
territorial integrity of Iraq, maintaining the territorial integrity of 
Iraq, so that the weapons that are flowing from Iran and from Syria 
into that country can, in fact, be stopped. Stopping the flow of 
weapons and terrorists into that country will be part of bringing about 
the security that is needed in that country.

[[Page 2944]]

  It also calls for a renewed focus on helping the Iraqis achieve a 
political settlement which is, at the end, a precondition to any 
successful outcome in Iraq.
  We need a new direction in Iraq. We need to speak in a bipartisan 
voice. We, as an institution, need to fulfill our constitutional duty 
as a coequal branch of Government as we move forward with what is one 
of the most important questions that today faces the American Nation.
  The resolution I hope will be considered in the Senate this next week 
is a first step in that direction. I am proud to be a sponsor and a 
supporter of that resolution.

                          ____________________