[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5378-5386]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              THE ECONOMY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days with which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the subject matter of my 
special order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MICHAUD. At this time, I know the gentleman from Wisconsin has 
another meeting he has to attend, so I would recognize the Congressman 
Steve Kagen from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KAGEN. Thank you very much, Congressman Michaud. I certainly 
appreciate being with you this evening, especially after an 
enlightening hour of finding out that really they weren't borrowing and 
spending money.
  But, indeed, this is the class of 2006. We were elected to take a 
positive change in a new direction. We are not the party of borrow and 
spend and borrow and spend. Because as you all know, the first two 
letters of borrow and spend are B and S. We are here this evening to 
talk with you about our trade policies. Indeed, our foreign trade with 
China has become entirely a negative number.
  In this brief slide, the 2006 trade deficit will show you that the 
United States is losing. We have lost $233 billion a year in 2006. In 
the first 2001 numbers, $83 billion deficit has mushroomed to $233 
billion.
  In 2006, China ranked as the fourth largest export market for the 
United States and the second largest import market. They are our 
trading partner. We have had the American century, and now we are 
moving into what will become the Chinese century. But we should be 
ordered in the rule of law, and unfortunately for us here in the United 
States, we suffer because they are not following all of the laws.
  In a recent article in The New York Times, it reads in part that the 
Chinese's real advantage results from subsidies. They include 
government grants for modernization, low-cost loans, debt forgiveness, 
tax breaks for export or businesses and subsidies for suppliers of wood 
and pulp, something we are keenly aware of in Wisconsin, in my 
district, which used to be known as Paper Valley.
  According to government data available from the Chinese government 
themselves, more than 70,000 illegal seizures occurred of private 
property, of land in 2004. In 2003, the Chinese admit that 168,000 
occurrences of seizures took place.

[[Page 5379]]



                              {time}  2045

  Well, this is what happens in a Communist country, and it is to their 
advantage.
  The subsidies: According to our own U.S. Trade Representative, ``The 
Chinese subsidies at issue are widely available and offer significant 
benefits, particularly through income and value added tax breaks. They 
make it harder for U.S. products to compete with Chinese products, not 
only in the U.S. and Chinese markets but in any market in the world. 
They accomplish this by providing a competitive advantage to a wide 
range of Chinese exports, including, for example, various steel 
products, wood products, such as hardwood, plywood and paper products, 
and by providing incentives for Chinese firms to purchase domestic 
products instead of those from the United States.''
  United States' manufacturers and exporters are suffering because 
there is another trade partner of ours that is not following the rules. 
Indeed, 15 to 20 percent of all products made in China are counterfeit 
materials. They need to follow the rules.
  On this slide is a measure of their unfair trade. There are three 
things primarily that China is not complying with: currency 
manipulation, their yuan is below where market prices would bear the 
price; illegal subsidies; and illegal grants, grants given to companies 
that have no intention of paying them back. And what can we do about 
this? We really need balance in our trade deals. We don't need free 
trade; we need fair trade.
  How do we fix an unfair trade deal? We need new leadership in the 
administration. We need a President and an administration that is 
interested in fair trade. And what must we do? We must establish fair 
trade and export our values, not our jobs. After all, if we don't make 
anything in America, we simply won't have anything.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Congressman Kagen. This has 
definitely been enlightening. I really appreciate all the charts that 
you have. And you are absolutely right, the American people want the 
new direction for this country and are very pleased particularly with 
the freshman class, yourself leading the charge to make sure that we do 
have fair trade agreements. I want to thank you for your time coming to 
the floor this evening to talk about this very important issue.
  I would now like to recognize another freshman Member of the 110th 
Congress class, the gentleman from Illinois who has taken a real 
leadership role as well on trade, but also on veterans affairs issues 
where he replaced a former colleague in this body, Lane Evans, who has 
been a mentor and has been a leader also on veterans' issues. I would 
like to yield to Congressman Hare of Illinois.
  Mr. HARE. Thank you, Mr. Michaud. And I want to thank you for your 
leadership on this whole issue of trade. I was here last week, as you 
know, and we were talking about the Employee Free Choice Act. And I 
spoke then as a former labor organizer about the difficulties working 
men and women have in being able to join the union. Tonight I am here, 
and I want to tell a brief story, if I could, about what I think this 
whole trade situation boils down to.
  In my district, we have a city called Galesburg, Illinois. It was the 
home of Maytag, manufacturing washers, driers and refrigerators; 1,600 
very talented men and women worked in that factory. On two different 
occasions, the workers of that plant gave pay concessions back to keep 
that plant open. The State of Illinois, my home State, gave Maytag $24 
million in State taxes for renovations to keep the factory there. The 
plant, about 8 months later, announced that it was moving to Sonora, 
Mexico.
  The CEO said it was because of several things, but the bottom line 
was they could make more money manufacturing in Sonora, Mexico, for 
cheap labor. And 1,600 of those people are out of work, and 1,000 more 
recently followed a few weeks later in Herron, Illinois, from another 
Maytag facility. And the CEO of that corporation said, ``You just have 
to understand, Congressman, I am in the business to make money for my 
shareholders. I don't really care about the people of this city and the 
educational system and what happens to them, and the small businesses 
that feed into Maytag. I am here to make money.''
  Well, I am here tonight to say a couple of things on this whole issue 
of trade. First, let me say, I said this on the campaign trail, 
Congressman. I am a card-carrying capitalist; I believe in trade. We 
have to have trade. I am not a protectionist, an isolationist. But I do 
know this. As my colleague, Representative Kagen, said, we have to have 
some fair trade.
  Under this NAFTA agreement, it was tough enough to lose those jobs, 
but we negotiated that; we, meaning our trade folks, negotiated a 5-
year head start for those Maytag jobs in Mexico, gave the Mexican 
government a 5-year head start on refrigerator products. Now, how are 
you going to compete?
  I went to an editorial board, and I remember saying to the publisher 
of the newspaper, if your competitor across the river had a 5-year head 
start on subscriptions and advertising and being able to get the news 
out each and every day, and you could not publish for 5 years, do you 
think you would be at a distinct disadvantage? He said, ``Absolutely.''
  So here is what I think we need to do, in plain and simple language 
from a former clothing worker: I think we have to stop this exportation 
of manufacturing jobs across this country. And we have to be not just 
angry about it; we have to say: I am more than angry. I am now going to 
do something that we haven't done before. I am going to raise my voice 
and I am going to tell my elected Members of the Congress of the United 
States that if you vote to send our jobs overseas, we are going to vote 
to send you back to your district permanently, because in this 
business, we are supposed to be here to represent people.
  The job of a Member of the United States Congress, to me, is standing 
up for ordinary people, and I am tired of seeing our jobs shipped 
overseas. And, more importantly, the American people hopefully watching 
and listening tonight are tired of their tax dollars being spent to 
subsidize those jobs being sent to Sonora, Mexico, where, by the way, 
the people down there have no trade unions, don't have enough money to 
even purchase the products that they are making. And I believe that all 
of us, whether you are a Republican or Democrat or Independent, have 
seen the hemorrhaging.
  In textile, in my industry, thousands of jobs are gone, not because 
people couldn't do it, but because they can't compete against 18 cents 
an hour. It is impossible. Not simply because these people were getting 
benefits and other things that they desperately needed so they can do 
like I did and buy a home and put their kids through school and go to 
college and do the right thing; these are veterans of our country who 
have fought and defended it. They come back and had a job that was 
taken away from them, not because of anything they did wrong.
  So here is what I propose: How about a little corporate 
responsibility? But how about, let's tell our trade negotiators that we 
want trade, but let's make it fair and free? Let us don't negotiate our 
manufacturing jobs overseas. And, by the way, let me just say, I have a 
lot of agriculture in my district, and farmers are the last group 
brought to bear on the trade negotiations. They are never brought to 
the table. I think we have to have, as Representative Kagen said, an 
administration and a Congress that says to the trade negotiators, look, 
we want trade; we want to be able to negotiate a decent standard of 
trade for our folks. But we will not do it by simply abdicating our 
manufacturing base, whether it is in steel or textile or automobiles, 
whatever it is, because there are hundreds of thousands of people in 
this country, and not every one of them is going to sit behind a 
computer terminal the rest of their life and work. They want to be 
welders. They want to produce steel. They want to produce automobiles. 
They want to cut men's suits like I am wearing tonight that, by the 
way, was made in Chicago, Illinois, by working men and women.

[[Page 5380]]

  So I would just encourage everybody this evening as we have this 
debate on trade that, from my perspective, I ran on this issue, and I 
am going to be a Congressman on this issue. I am not going to vote for 
a trade deal that is going to send one more job overseas. I am not 
going to vote for a trade deal that abdicates the responsibility, and 
to go back to my district and as some people say, well, you know, we 
are in a global economy. It is high tech. Well, I understand I am in a 
global economy. I wasn't born yesterday. But I also know, to those men 
and women from Maytag that don't know what they are going to do for 
their health care now that it is gone, for health care, their pensions 
that are on the line that they are losing, those people from KSIH that 
lost their jobs simply because they happen to be a union plan and maybe 
made a bit too much money; I say to those folks that, today, this 
Congress needs to stand up for working men and women. It needs to say 
we want trade in this country. We will work very hard to make sure that 
we have the ability to export our products, but at the same time, the 
one product that we are no longer going to export in this country is 
the men and women and their futures and their children, because there 
is no place for that in fair and free trade.
  With that, I just want to thank the gentleman for allowing me to 
speak this evening for a few moments on this issue. I believe very 
deeply in this. The great news about being a freshman is sometimes we 
don't come with the best prepared speeches. I think we speak a lot from 
the heart. But I can tell you this much, from a former clothing 
perspective, in our union, there is a movie called, ``The 
Inheritance,'' that talks about how the union was formed. And at the 
very end of it, a little old man looks into the end, and I would say to 
our friends on the other side of the aisle who don't want to work with 
us on this straight policy, he says, ``You think this is the end? My 
friend, this is only the beginning.''
  This 1-hour tonight is the beginning of changing trade policy in this 
country and in this Chamber. And I am honored to be part of it.
  Mr. MICHAUD. I thank you, Representative Hare, for your leadership 
role in this as well.
  If I understand your comments correctly, you are not against trade 
deals, but you want to make sure that they are fair trade deals. And I 
really appreciate your perspective. But especially just coming off of a 
campaign, being a freshman Member working up in your State of Illinois, 
you know what is going on.
  I think, all too often, once people get here in Washington, D.C., 
they tend to forget what is really happening in reality. And reality 
is, we have lost over 3 million jobs nationwide because of our unfair 
trade deals, and we have got to bring equity back in that. So I really 
appreciate your leadership in that role and look forward to working 
with you as we move forward to make sure that we do have fair trade 
deals here in this Congress.
  It is now my great pleasure to introduce another freshman Member who 
has also taken a leadership role, from Iowa, Congressman Bruce Braley.
  Mr. BRALEY. I would like to thank my friend from Maine, and also my 
friend from Illinois who happened to bring up the issue with the Maytag 
jobs. And I think this leads us to another topic that is not discussed 
very often in terms of some of the hidden costs of our current trade 
policy.
  The former world headquarters for Maytag was located in Newton, Iowa. 
And I grew up about 30 minutes from Newton, Iowa. I got my first 
driver's license at the Jasper County Courthouse in Newton, Iowa. Over 
150 years ago, my great, great grandfather, George Washington Braley, 
walked from up in your neck of the woods from Vermont all the way to 
Iowa and settled in Jasper County. And Maytag has been a foundation of 
the economy in Jasper County for many, many years, and Mr. Hare talked 
about the plant in Illinois, the Maytag plant that lost many of its 
jobs to Mexico.
  What happened about 10 years ago was, in an effort to develop 
competition between competing Maytag factories for the Neptune washers, 
it was decided that there were going to be incentives offered by the 
State of Iowa and the State of Illinois in the competition to keep 
those jobs in America. And so the legislature in Illinois and the 
legislature in Iowa both went to work to pass special tax statuses for 
expensing of manufacturing equipment to make it more attractive for 
those companies in Iowa and Illinois to be able to compete for these 
new Neptune washers.
  Unfortunately, as we have seen, that competition was short-term only. 
And the Maytag headquarters no longer exists in Newton, Iowa. The 
Maytag jobs in Illinois have now left for Mexico. And we are seeing the 
impact that this trade policy that we have pursued for the past decade 
is having on American workers.
  And, like my friend from Illinois, nobody I talk to, my friends in 
labor, my friends in small businesses and manufacturing, thinks that 
trade is a bad thing. We need to encourage trade, because that is what 
creates job opportunities for American workers. What we are talking 
about is making sure that our trade policies are fair and balanced. And 
one of the unique things that I have seen since I came here is that we 
seem to see more and more small- and medium-sized manufacturers and 
labor coming together and talking about a need for a comprehensive 
reform of our trade policies.
  One of the things we know is that the Constitution gave this body, 
Congress, an important role to play in international trade, and one of 
the problems with the fast-track trade promotion authority that 
previous Congresses gave to the chief executive was that, in a sense, 
it involved an abdication of our responsibilities to be an active 
partner in setting trade policies. And what that means is that we have 
also abdicated some of our responsibilities to the workers of this 
country, to the workers of international countries where trade laws and 
workers rights are not held to the same high standards they are in the 
United States. We have penalized American manufacturers because of 
environmental regulations they are required to comply with in this 
country that are not imposed upon foreign manufacturers. And we have 
seen the exploitation of workers and human rights in other countries 
that allow goods to be produced at slave labor conditions and severely 
undercut the market for those goods on the international economy.

                              {time}  2100

  So I am here tonight with my friends to talk about why it is 
important that, when we go forward from this point, looking at the 
trade policies, not just for the current administration, but for future 
administrations, no matter which party happens to occupy the White 
House, it is important for us to look back on the historical role that 
Congress has played in making sure that our trade policies reflect the 
same basic values that made this country great in the first place. And 
so that is why I am here to talk about how we, as a body, have to step 
up to the plate and share our fair share of this responsibility moving 
forward.
  And to my friend from Maine, where I know these policies have had a 
dramatic impact in a lot of different manufacturing and foreign good 
sectors, I would like to yield back and ask about some of the 
difficulties that his constituents have encountered in this same area.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Well, I thank the gentleman for his discussion on this 
issue. You brought up a very good point. You had mentioned fast track. 
And I think what a lot of people don't realize is the fact that fast 
track only allows Congress two options, to vote ``yes'' or ``no.'' We 
have no options to amend this trade deal. We just have to vote ``yes'' 
or ``no.'' And we are abdicating our responsibilities by allowing fast 
track to occur, which hopefully, with a new Congress and a new 
direction, when we look at trade deals, we will be able to change fast 
track so that we can have an opportunity to make sure that we do have 
fair trade deals.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. MICHAUD. I yield.

[[Page 5381]]


  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Were you serving in this body when fast track was 
authorized?
  Mr. MICHAUD. No, I was not. I was serving in the Maine legislature, 
and I was opposed to it then. I am opposed to it now, especially when 
you see what damage fast track has caused to this Nation, what it has 
caused to our manufacturing. Maine alone, over the last 6 years or so, 
we lost 23 percent of our manufacturing base alone in the State of 
Maine. Certain labor market areas had unemployment rates over 30 
percent. It has really devastated the State of Maine because of these 
unfair trade deals, and it is all related to the unfair trade deals.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. We know from history that timber has always 
played an important role in the economy of your State. How has the 
timber industry been affected because of what is happening in the 
global marketplace for timber and lumber sources from other areas that 
don't have to comply with the same types of restrictions we talked 
about earlier?
  Mr. MICHAUD. As far as industries in the State of Maine, timber, the 
paper industry have definitely been devastated the most when you look 
at trade deals. We just actually had a few weeks ago Moosehead 
Manufacturing which closed its doors because of the imports from China. 
So it has had a negative impact primarily in the paper and in the 
timber industries.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. One the things that we often don't talk about 
when we talk about the loss of jobs overseas is the direct impact it 
has on the communities where those jobs depart from. And one of the 
things that we know, in talking about the sad story of Maytag in Iowa, 
is that at the time Maytag still functioned with its corporate 
headquarters in Newton, Iowa. They contributed almost $1 million a year 
just in property taxes alone to the city of Newton and Jasper County. 
That is just one small component of the many intangibles that we don't 
talk about with these trade policies and how they impact the 
communities that we represent over the long term.
  One of the other things we know is that a lot of people who work in 
those good-paying jobs take on leadership roles in their communities as 
volunteers, as coaches, as mentors; and when they have to leave because 
they don't have a place to work anymore, all of that intangible benefit 
that contributes to the quality of life in a community leaves with 
them. So I think that sometimes we focus too much on the pure economic 
costs of these jobs that go overseas, and not enough on the real human 
costs that goes along with them.
  Mr. MICHAUD. You are absolutely right. As a matter of fact, when you 
look at what is happening, a lot of municipalities, their primary 
business has been hit because of unfair trade deals. It has that 
rippling effect to other businesses within the community, but also the 
family structure. When you look at the fact that when Mills filed 
bankruptcy, and I have seen it in my own town, the divorce rate 
actually goes up. The alcoholism goes up, and you are losing that 
structure, and that is why we have to make sure that we do have fair 
trade deals.
  As we heard earlier today from Congressman Hare, he is not against 
trade deals. He just wants to make sure that they are fair trade deals. 
And that is what we have to do as a Congress is to make sure that we do 
have fair trade deals.
  I am very pleased to see that a lot of Members, new Members of 
Congress who have just come off the campaign trail, when they were 
campaigning, they were talking to their constituents, and they heard a 
lot about loss of manufacturing here in this country because of the 
trade deals. So I am very pleased to see that we have such a large 
group of freshmen Members on the floor this evening to talk about trade 
deals and what they are doing to this country, or what they are doing 
to their individual districts.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. I think a good example of that was one of the 
first things I did after becoming a Member of Congress was look at 
caucuses I could join that were going to be beneficial to the 
constituents that I represent in my district. One of the caucuses I 
joined was the Steel Caucus because there is a steel plant that has a 
direct economic benefit to employees in my district.
  And one of the things I was struck by at the meeting that I went to, 
a breakfast meeting of the Steel Caucus, was it was bipartisan. There 
were representatives of the steel industry, of labor, and everybody was 
there to talk about the same problem, and that was cheap steel from 
China flooding the U.S. and international markets.
  And one of the things that came up during those discussions, again in 
a bipartisan sense, was the myth of the so-called level playing field, 
which is that U.S. manufacturers who play by the rules, provide good, 
high-paying jobs with decent benefits, comply with environmental 
regulations, treat their workers fairly, are not on a level playing 
field when it comes to competing with Chinese competition and other 
parts of the world economy because other countries do not play by the 
same rules.
  So I think one of the things that we need to be talking about here is 
how we can work in a bipartisan spirit to develop those coalitions that 
have a direct benefit for American workers, American manufacturers, 
American employers and consumers of these products, because we all are 
literally in this together.
  Mr. MICHAUD. You are absolutely right. And actually speaking about in 
it together, we have been joined by another freshman Member from 
Pennsylvania, freshmen Member Jason Altmire, who has also taken an 
interest and a leading role in the whole trade deal. I would like to 
yield to Mr. Altmire for his comments.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I would like to thank the gentleman from Maine for his 
leadership on this issue. This is a critical issue.
  And you mentioned a lot of us are freshmen, like the gentleman from 
Iowa, who are just coming off the campaign trail from a few months 
back. And I come from a district in western Pennsylvania, just north of 
Pittsburgh, and I have six counties going along, three of them go along 
the Ohio line, and the other ones go just north of Pittsburgh. And I 
would think you would be hard pressed to find a district in this 
country that has seen more damage done by the global marketplace than 
Pittsburgh over the past 30 or 40 years, and more recently over the 
past dozen or 15 years since NAFTA was passed in 1993.
  And just for some historical perspective for what I am going to talk 
about, and I know you have mentioned it already, the country as a whole 
lost three million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was agreed to in 
1993. And that is one out of every six manufacturing jobs that existed 
in this country at that time. I don't think we can draw any other 
conclusion but that that was not beneficial to this country and had the 
effect of job loss. I mean, it is self-evident.
  Now, manufacturing jobs are disappearing in Pennsylvania as well. We 
can trace about 100,000 jobs lost in Pennsylvania as a direct result of 
NAFTA. And of course when you get into indirect result, that number is 
much higher.
  Now, there has been a loss of 210,000 manufacturing jobs total, 24 
percent decrease in the State of Pennsylvania over just the past 6 
years. That is total. That is not just NAFTA. That is all these trade 
agreements. So we have lost a quarter of our manufacturing jobs in just 
the past 6 years.
  Now, in my district just last week, this has unfortunate significance 
that just last week we lost 85 workers from Wheatland Tube, a large 
manufacturing plant in my district; 85 workers were released on 
February 26. And this is just the latest in a series of downsizing that 
has taken place there.
  And I would put in a mention of Congressman Tim Ryan from Youngstown, 
who is very involved in this issue as well. And he came over to 
Wheatland Tube with me during the campaign, and we met with some of the 
workers and the leadership there at that time, and they expressed their 
concerns

[[Page 5382]]

about China and their inability to compete in a fair way with what is 
happening in China. And here we see only a few months later that 85 
workers have now lost their jobs as a result of what is happening.
  And I would mention this quote from the vice president from Wheatland 
Tube last week. He said, ``We are not seeing relief from Chinese 
imports, and we are not going to sit around and wait for that relief. 
We need to right-size the company.'' And this is just one example.
  Again, I have six counties in western Pennsylvania, and we are seeing 
this certainly all over the district and all over western Pennsylvania. 
But right there at Wheatland Tube, unfortunately, it hit home just last 
week.
  Now, the onslaught of foreign subsidized goods that are illegally 
dumped in the U.S. is just one of the many problems that we are seeing 
that has not been addressed by this administration. And certainly these 
trade agreements are doing nothing about this. And the administration 
that has put forward CAFTA and some of the other more recent trade 
agreements continues down the same path.
  And I can tell you that, with the possible exception of health care, 
there was no issue over the 18 months I spent on the campaign trail 
that came up more often and was of greater concern than these trade 
agreements in western Pennsylvania. So the American people have spoken 
on this issue. I can tell you, for sure, they spoke in my district, and 
I know they spoke in Mr. Braley's district. And we are going to hear 
from Congresswoman Sutton later and Mr. Ellison as well.
  I think this is an issue whose time has come. It cannot be ignored 
any longer. These trade agreements have been detrimental to America. 
And none of us are saying we should bury our heads in the sand and 
ignore the global marketplace. What we are saying, as Mr. Hare 
eloquently put it earlier, is that we need to have trade agreements 
that represent fair trade. And fair trade means having the trading 
partner make some effort, at least an effort, to come into compliance 
with environmental laws, with workers' rights, certainly child labor 
laws. These are things that have been completely left out of these 
trade agreements. So we find ourselves just giving away the store and 
shipping those jobs overseas, as Dr. Kagen's chart so eloquently 
illustrated.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I would.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania has a 
fondness for college football so I am going to root this question in 
that. One of the great football players at Iowa State University when I 
attended there in the mid-to-late 70s was a gentleman named Tom 
Perticone from Clareton, Pennsylvania. And while Tom was playing 
football at Iowa State, the movie ``Deer Hunter'' was very popular, 
which was filmed in and around Pittsburgh general area, and also near 
Clareton. And one of the things that film depicted so well was the 
whole culture of the community where a life's history has been devoted 
to a particular industry and how everything revolves around it. And we 
have seen that in my home community of Waterloo, Iowa, near the old 
Rath Packing Company, where a virtual community of businesses and 
services formed around the factory, and everyone's lives were tied up 
in that.
  And I was hoping that you might be able to shed some light on the 
very real, personal toll on the culture of those communities in your 
district that have seen this dramatic shift, and how employment is 
available to the people who graduate from high school and don't have 
the same opportunities they did 15 years ago.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Well, in a word, it has been devastating, and we have 
seen the results. I talked about Wheatland Tube. I grew up about 100 
miles from that plant, in a river town that was across from a big 
Allegheny Ludlam plant, which is where all the families worked. If you 
lived in that town, that is where you worked. And, unfortunately, 
things have not gone so well over the past couple of decades, both at 
that plant and another Allegheny Ludlam plant that I have in my 
district, and much of it has to do with these foreign trade issues. And 
as a result, now, when you travel through these communities, they used 
to be so vibrant and had a downtown that you could go through and it 
was hustle and bustle and there was activity. A lot of them now are 
ghost towns because we have seen the impact and the job loss that has 
resulted from the downfall of the steel industry 20 and 30 years ago, 
but more recently, the other heavy manufacturing that has been shipped 
overseas.

                              {time}  2115

  So it has been devastating to these communities, and you would only 
need to take one drive through much of my district to see the impact, 
because you can see the remnants of some of those plants. In many 
cases, they have been razed, and it is a brownfield site. But you can 
see the difference, and you can imagine what it used to be like 30 and 
40 years ago and, in many cases, more recently.
  I was just going to wrap up my portion by talking about what is 
coming next before us. And, again, none of us oppose the idea of trade. 
Fair trade is beneficial to both parties by definition. That is what we 
are talking about. But as the administration puts forward the Peruvian 
Trade Agreement, Colombia, Panama, and certainly fast track renewal, 
which the gentleman from Maine was talking about, we need to consider 
the fact that Congress, Representatives of the people, need to play an 
active role in these trade agreements. And, unfortunately, that has not 
been the case, which is why we have ended up with such one-sided 
agreement. So, as we consider those issues with Peru and Colombia and 
Panama and Presidential fast-track authority, I for one am going to 
support the working Americans of this country for fair trade practices.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  I really appreciate your willingness to come to the floor this 
evening. I know you care deeply about this issue, where it has affected 
your district dramatically, and your willingness to speak up for the 
working men and women and businesses here in this country to make sure 
that they have a fair shake at these trade deals. So thank you for your 
leadership. I look forward to working with you as we move forward to 
deal with these issues.
  Now I would like to recognize a gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ellison), who is also a member of the freshmen class, but he brings a 
uniqueness from the State of Minnesota as far as the effect that these 
unfair trade deals have had on the State of Minnesota and the 
businesses and the working people within Minnesota.
  I yield to the Representative from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the Member from Maine for his 
excellent leadership, looking out for the hard-working people of this 
whole United States.
  It is true, I am honored to come from the Fifth Congressional 
District of Minnesota, but as I stand before you tonight, Mr. Speaker, 
I am honored to associate myself with the Member from Maine, with the 
Member from Ohio and Pennsylvania, because working people all over 
America need a fair trade and balanced trade situation. We can no 
longer abide doing trade deals which essentially support environmental 
policies that degrade other nations, that degrade workers in other 
nations, and that degrade human rights in other nations, and then 
thereby give other nations a competitive advantage over us because of 
the exploitation and ignoring important environmental regulations. And 
it is all very important because we need leadership tonight, Mr. 
Speaker, leadership which is willing to stand up and be counted for the 
American people, leadership which will not go with the wind but will 
actually change the wind. That is the leadership we need at this time.
  Let me say that we need a trade policy that does three things, 
basically: respects workers' rights and their dignity; protects our 
fragile environment;

[[Page 5383]]

and upholds basic human rights. Today's trade policies in America do 
only a few of those things but very little of what we need.
  What we see is a continual erosion at the very heart of America: the 
middle class. It started first with the elimination of our 
manufacturing jobs. And I now represent Minnesota, the Fifth District 
of Minnesota, but I started life out in Detroit, where I saw plants 
closing on a daily, weekly basis, and I saw jobs outsourced on a weekly 
basis. But now what we see is a situation in Minnesota where that has 
taken hold and we see jobs leaving left, right and center, and it has 
got to stop.
  The global economy has evolved to a large extent and is reminiscent 
today of the Robber Baron era, where huge transnational companies scour 
the planet for the cheapest, most exploitable labor and the most lax 
environmental standards. We have the opportunity to change that in 
Congress, and we must change it.
  But what kind of global economy do we want? The answer to that 
question must be determined and will be determined to a large extent by 
the rules incorporated in free trade agreements that define so much of 
the global economy. By what we decide in this Chamber, we will 
determine the shape of the global economy.
  If we want sweatshops in the global economy and the continued erosion 
of our middle class, we could continue negotiating and passing trade 
deals with no protection for workers or the environment. Trade deals 
that threaten the prevailing wage laws. Trade deals that could force us 
to privatize public services.
  But if we truly believe in a global economy that lifts the living 
standards at home and around the globe, one that seriously values the 
environment on which all life depends, then what we must do is we must 
do better. If we want a better global economy that lifts standards 
everywhere, we need to change our approach to trade agreements as we 
enter into this fast-track arena coming up.
  First, we need to put an end to the fast-track trade negotiating 
procedure which previous Congresses have ceded to the Executive branch. 
The Founding Fathers wisely delegated that role exclusively to the 
branch of government closest to the people: the Congress. And we have 
the perfect opportunity to take back our constitutional responsibility 
by allowing fast-track promotion authority to expire in June. We can 
and will put forward a different, more humane method of negotiating 
international trade agreements, but it is time for fast track to die a 
rightful death.
  Secondly, we must stop passing more trade deals designed to spread 
the sweatshop model of the global economy. It has become clear that 
NAFTA, after 13 years of real-life experience, has not worked. It has 
cost us a million manufacturing jobs, left Mexican workers without 
rights and still working for wages far below the Mexican poverty level. 
It has displaced more than 1.5 million Mexican farm families, leaving 
many with no alternative but to migrate north for a better life.
  The same applies to CAFTA and the pending Peru and Colombia ``free'' 
trade agreements. Colombia is distinguished by being a country where 
trade unionists are assassinated more than in any other nation in the 
world.
  Instead, we can construct a new global economy built on generosity 
and inclusivity; one that raises living standards and supports the vast 
and growing global middle class. But we can only do it by casting off 
the failed policies of recent decades and by building the middle class.
  The choice is ours. The choice is clear. It is time to reclaim 
Congress's free trade authority and our country's, and the world's 
future.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.
  And we will work closely with you as we move forward to make sure 
that what trade deals we do pass in this Congress are fair trade deals. 
I want to thank you very much for your leadership and interest in this 
area.
  Mr. ELLISON. Fair trade.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield to an individual 
who is also a member of the freshmen class but an individual who 
definitely has done a yeoperson's job in dealing with this trade issue. 
She knows the trade issues inside out. She has been a leader. She has 
organized the freshmen class to send a letter to the chairman of the 
Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, because of the concerns about 
trade.
  And, Ms. Sutton, I want to really thank you from the bottom of my 
heart for what you bring to this whole debate as we debate the trade 
deals, and I look forward to working with you over this Congress to 
move forward to make sure we have fair trade deals.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I now yield to Ms. Sutton.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
those kind remarks and for yielding.
  I thank you also not just for your leadership on behalf of the 
Members here, but I thank you for your leadership on this issue for the 
people that I represent, the good and fine folks of Northeast Ohio, 
from Lorraine to Akron to Barberton. This is so meaningful and so 
important, what we are doing here tonight and what we need to do, this 
Congress, to ensure that they have a better chance in this world.
  It is crystal clear, not just from the discussion tonight but from 
what we see when we go home to our districts and we look across 
America, that our trade policies are not benefiting America's workers 
and America's businesses as they should. And there is a lot of angst 
and anger out there. People are really concerned.
  The trade policies don't work for the average folks, but they also 
don't work, and I have to emphasize this, for American businesses as 
they should.
  Working families in my congressional district in the State of Ohio 
and our Nation continue to face mounting job losses and a tumultuous 
economy. We have heard the numbers before, but they bear repeating.
  Since 2000, we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs nationally. 
And, unfortunately, 200,000 of those jobs have been from my home State 
of Ohio.
  Now, it is clear that Congress needs to act. When things aren't 
working, we should change direction. And that is why I am so proud of 
these new Members whom we have had the opportunity to hear from today 
and the leadership that they are exhibiting to take this Congress and 
this country into a direction that will work for the American people. 
We can't stand idly by and watch our jobs go overseas and our families 
suffer at home and our trade deficits soar.
  I want to point out that I, like so many of the others who have 
spoken before, feel it is very important to say I am not opposed to 
trade. You know, sometimes when we start having discussions like this, 
people try to pit you into one category or another. They like to say 
you are either for trade or you are a protectionist.
  Well, this is not a question about protectionism versus trade. This 
is a question about the rules of trade, and this is a question about 
what rules we think should be in a new trade model that will allow for 
trade to be engaged in fully and fairly by this country but require 
that others play by the same rules.
  Trade can benefit American businesses and workers, and it can be a 
tool to help developing countries that are looking to access our 
markets. I hold out hope, and I hope it bears out, that I will have the 
opportunity in this Congress to vote for a trade agreement that lifts 
up our working families at home and abroad; a trade agreement that 
protects our environment at home and abroad; and a trade agreement that 
has strong and enforceable provisions, ensuring that all partners are 
playing by the same rules.
  Now, we have heard some discussion about fast track already this 
evening. And my colleague Representative Braley and Congressman 
Michaud, you have identified this as such a critical issue coming up 
very quickly, set to expire in June. And I can tell you that, on behalf 
of those I represent in Northeast Ohio, I, for one, will not be 
supporting its renewal.

[[Page 5384]]

  Fast track has been a raw deal for many American workers and 
businesses. Fast track takes away the accountability and oversight that 
Congress has been given under the Constitution to deal with trade. And, 
frankly, it has left us in a position with misguided and downright 
shameful trade policies that we have today.
  If we had not had fast track, Congress could have been in a place to 
play a significant role in shaping the trade agreements while it still 
might have made a difference. The problem with fast track is, by the 
time it gets here, all we get to do is say whether we are going to vote 
``yes'' or ``no'' for what is a bad trade deal.
  We need to move in a new direction on trade. It is a moral 
imperative, and our fight begins with ending fast track. But there are 
other concerns that we have talked about on the trade horizon, such as 
the deals with Peru and Colombia and Panama. And these agreements, they 
have been modeled after the same flawed model that NAFTA gave us. And 
NAFTA was responsible for 50,000 jobs losses in Ohio. It is no longer 
hypothetical. We don't have to wonder what is going to happen with 
NAFTA. NAFTA has been a disaster for the people I represent and for 
this country.
  So while we continue to get these harmful trade agreements forced 
down our throats, we have failed to address many of the trade problems 
we face with China and Japan and Korea and others. And while our trade 
deficits soar to the tune of a record $800 billion, which I have to 
tell you is not a record we should be happy with, with these nations, 
our wages in our Nation stagnate and hundreds of thousands of jobs have 
been displaced.
  What is it about these failed trade policies that those who continue 
to push them don't understand? This is not acceptable, and we cannot 
allow this race to the bottom to continue.

                              {time}  2130

  I thank the gentleman very much for his leadership. I thank you on 
behalf of those I represent. I will continue to work with you as much 
as I possibly can to develop a new trade model, one that will work for 
American workers and businesses.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady. You are absolutely 
right, it is these flawed models that continue to come up after the 
NAFTA model and all these other trade deals. Until you change that 
flawed model, we are still going to get these bad trade deals 
continuing.
  You mentioned the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I don't think there 
is any fix for this agreement. I think it is highly offensive that the 
Bush administration would even negotiate with a country that is 
infamous for the highest rate of trade unionist assassinations. More 
than 2,000 labor union activists have been murdered in Colombia since 
1990; 60 assassinated in 2006 alone. I think that is just 
unconscionable.
  I agree with Congressman Sandy Levin when he says that we have to 
look at these flawed models that are out there. These side agreements 
that people are talking about, they are not going to work. They don't 
have the force of law.
  I think we definitely have a long ways to go before we have trade 
deals that I can support. And with the freshman class we currently have 
under your great, fantastic leadership, I applaud them, and encourage 
that each and every one of you continue to speak out on this issue, 
because it is an issue that is important to the American people, it is 
an issue that is important to our businesses, workers in this country, 
but it is also an issue that is very important when you look at our 
security and immigration.
  When we heard the NAFTA discussion, when they passed NAFTA, we were 
encouraged; I was not here, but Members were encouraged to vote for it 
because it would help with the illegal immigration problem with Mexico. 
The problem has not been solved. It has gotten worse because the NAFTA 
agreement has not worked the way it was supposed to work.
  So I look forward to working with you and the rest of the freshman 
class, along with other colleagues who are interested in this trade 
deal.
  Speaking about other colleagues, another gentlelady from Ohio as 
well, Congresswoman Kaptur, who has also been a strong leader in the 
trade debate over the past 5 years that I have been here, and she has 
been a tremendous advocate for making sure that we have fair trade 
deals, I see she has some charts up there with a lot of red ink. I 
assume that is probably the trade deficit that she is going to talk 
about.
  I yield to the gentlelady.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Congressman Michaud, Congresswoman Sutton and Congressman 
Braley, I wanted to come to the floor tonight and say it is so 
wonderful to have you here in this beloved House, to try to course 
correct on a direction that the United States has been heading in the 
wrong direction now for over two decades. And with the new energy that 
you represent and the new leadership, I have no doubt that when fast 
track comes up for reauthorization later this year, we are going to 
stop it dead in its tracks and begin turning our country around again.
  I just wanted to run to the floor just for a couple of minutes to put 
some notes in the Record and to say that for 23 years Congress has 
really doled out to the executive branch our trade-making authority 
under Article I, section 8.
  If you go back to 1975 when fast track was first passed, the United 
States had trade balances up until then for almost the entirety of our 
history. Then as you look at each succeeding agreement, whether you go 
to 1993 and NAFTA, we were already amassing trade deficits after the 
first fast track was passed back in the seventies.
  Then when PNTR with China was passed, plus NAFTA, plus all the other 
agreements that were signed, we moved into the most historic deficits 
represented by the lost jobs that Congresswoman Sutton talked about, 
that Congressman Braley talked about, Congressman Michaud you talked 
about and personally lived through.
  So we have seen real wages stagnant with those jobs lost. We have 
seen our jobs move overseas to the lowest-wage countries in the world, 
the most undemocratic. We have seen child labor flourish. We have seen 
bonded labor come back into our country as a result. We have global 
warming taking hold as our environmental regulations are really 
overturned under agreements like NAFTA. Illegal immigrants stream 
across our borders because they are treated like they have no value in 
their home countries. Our trade deficit continues to soar, and the drug 
trade locks in heavily.
  So I wanted to come down tonight and present some of these figures 
and say that there is a pattern to history now. You are like the second 
wave. You are coming in here. Those of us who fought so hard against 
NAFTA in 1993, those of us who tried so hard to course-correct, we 
never had the votes. Unfortunately, it was so close; it was so very 
close. But people hadn't lived the washout. You now represent places 
that have experienced the results of this.
  So we look forward to this coming vote this summer. It is such a joy 
to have you here, and I just wanted to thank you for your really 
determined leadership and for the people who voted you here so that you 
could come to Washington and make a difference. We so very, very much 
need your voices here.
  When Fast Track expires at the end of June this year, Congress can 
reclaim our authority granted by Article 1 Section 8 of the 
Constitution ``to regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' For 23 
years, Congress and the working class watched the executive branch 
commandeer U.S. trade policy. We also saw real wages stagnate, American 
jobs move overseas, child labor flourish, global warming take hold, 
illegal immigrants stream across our borders, our trade deficit soar, 
and the drug trade thrive.
  Like many of us here, I receive thousands of letters, phone calls, 
and e-mails from my constituents asking me to take action on these 
important issues.
  While there is no one cause for any of these problems, Congress 
cannot ignore how U.S. trade policy impacts the full range of issues 
affecting Americans and the world. Congress must respond to the 
American people who demand action from us.

[[Page 5385]]

  Congress has yielded enough power to the executive branch. If we 
renew Fast Track and continue to cede our Constitutionally-granted 
authority, we will only render ourselves more helpless in the face of a 
broken immigration system, economic instability, an environmental 
crisis, and a burgeoning drug trade.
  Our previous trade agreements may not have been the sole causes of 
these emergencies, but trade policy is the key to solving them.
  Congress needs to examine the root causes of our immigration problem 
and the exploitation of workers across the Americas. When the leaders 
of U.S., Mexico, and Canada signed NAFTA 14 years ago, they turned 
their backs on working men and women across the continent. The 
agreement continues to chip away at the U.S. economy, leaving millions 
jobless and accumulating a staggering and growing trade deficit with 
Mexico, now totaling a record $64.1 billion for 2006. At the same time, 
NAFTA ravaged the Mexican economy and destroyed the farming and 
agricultural sectors. This so-called ``free trade'' agreement has 
prompted hundreds of thousands of Mexicans to look for an escape from 
their worsening destitute circumstances to the U.S., and in doing so 
they risk their lives, the unity of their families and their futures.
  U.S. trade policy upsets more than just our immigration crisis. Our 
faltering trade policy has also contributed to the global environmental 
emergency. When the Bush Administration entered into CAFTA, they did so 
with countries which rarely enforce their already limited environmental 
policies. Many of my constituents have already contacted me about the 
devastating environmental consequences of the Peru Free Trade 
Agreement. How can Congress fight global warming in the U.S. while 
allowing our trade rivals to destroy the rain forests and retain lax 
emissions standards? We must use trade as a tool to protect the 
environment, not to pillage it.
  Lopsided flawed trade agreements weaken our economy. Since NAFTA's 
passage, over one million U.S. jobs were sucked into Mexico. Because of 
PNTR, more than 1.5 million jobs shipped out to China. After two 
centuries of trade surpluses, NAFTA ushered in an era of soaring trade 
deficits, even after proponents promised us bigger surpluses.
  More recently, President Bush's trade policy in particular has caused 
more damage to our trade accounts. The trade deficit has climbed to 
record numbers each year since he took office in 2001. From $362 
billion his first year to a whopping $763.6 billion last year, this 
President has been selling the U.S. to the highest foreign bidders.
  Our constituents are calling Congress to action. Without the 
authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, Congress cannot 
effectively respond to these crises.
  Congress must stand for free trade among free people, and ensure that 
all Americans have access to middle class jobs at middle class wages 
with health and retirement benefits that cannot be rescinded. We must 
oppose Fast Track, reclaim our negotiating authority from the executive 
branch, and answer the pleas of the American people.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, we are headed on a collision course. If you 
look at our budgetary deficit, we have the largest budgetary deficit in 
our history. The debt limit was increased to $9 trillion. We have the 
largest trade deficit in our history, which continues to rise because 
of these unfair trade deals. And if Congress does not get a handle on 
both the budgetary deficit and our trade deficit, we will no longer be 
the superpower that we are today.
  When you look at our budgetary deficit, over 45 percent of that is 
owned by foreigners, China being one of them. If you look at our trade 
deficit with China, we saw charts earlier where it is skyrocketing.
  When I hear my colleagues talk about the fact that we are going to 
put trade assistance funding in there so that we can retrain workers, 
they don't want trade adjustment assistance. They want their jobs. That 
is very important for them.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further on that 
point, recently, about a week ago, Hershey Chocolate announced it was 
going to move its operations out of Pennsylvania to Mexico. They have 
already been testing those Hershey Kisses, those big ones they are 
making down there now and the taste has changed. I am thinking, where 
is the old Hershey bar that used to taste so good?
  You look at all the jobs in Pennsylvania associated with all the 
dairying that goes on and then the processing. They say that they are 
going to save the tourist center, but it won't be real any more, 
because the jobs won't be there, both in the plant itself and in the 
countryside that provides the raw product into Hershey.
  So you ask, why are we allowing ourselves to be hollowed out like 
this? Wall Street is really in a pitched battle with Main Street across 
this country, and we have to fight here to save those middle-class 
jobs.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Absolutely. Congresswoman Sutton mentioned earlier the 
fact this is not just a workers' issue; it is a business issue. The 
United States Business and Industry Council has been very supportive, 
very helpful with the Kaptur trade deal. They are going to be very 
helpful I think when you look at fast track and other areas. So this 
isn't just working people issues; it is business issues. A lot of 
people try to put workers against business. It is not that issue at 
all. It is these unfair trade deals.
  I would like to ask Congresswoman Sutton a question, if I might. How 
would you address this issue: We hear all kinds of times the issue, you 
are a protectionist. What is your response to that?
  Ms. SUTTON. Well, again, this is the way those who like what is going 
on with our trade deals, and those would be more or less the 
multinational companies who are very involved in helping to push them, 
whenever we start talking about this and the real impact and the real 
effects, they like to call you names like protectionist.
  That is how they shut the debate down; but we can't allow that to 
happen, because, again, this is not a question of protectionism versus 
trade. It is a question about what are the rules of trade going to be.
  We just have to keep saying that, because there are going to be 
voices out there that would like people to believe otherwise. But all 
we are talking about is what kind of rules of trade do we believe 
should be engaged in.
  Mr. MICHAUD. That is very good. I know we are running out of time. I 
do want to thank you, Congresswoman Sutton and Congresswoman Kaptur, 
for your leadership in this role, and I really appreciate the hard work 
that everyone is doing on this issue, especially our freshman class.
  As Ms. Kaptur had mentioned, the freshman class has really come 
forward and really taken on this issue, taken an interest in this 
issue, I think primarily because you just came off the campaign trail. 
You heard what people were talking about out there. It is important for 
Members who have been here for a while to listen to you as freshman 
Members because you definitely have a lot to talk about when it comes 
to this trade issue.
  We have seen it firsthand. As I mentioned earlier, I worked at the 
mill for over 28 years, and I have seen firsthand what NAFTA has done 
to my town, my community, to individuals who worked in the mill.
  So I want to thank each and every one of you for taking an interest 
in this very important issue.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker: I am proud to join many of my House 
colleagues today to present a strong voice in opposition to renewing 
Fast Track trade negotiating authority in any way, shape or form.
  Fast Track allows the President to negotiate trade agreements without 
input from Congress. In addition, Congress is prohibited from amending 
any trade agreements reached under Fast Track authority.
  Cynically repackaged as ``trade promotion authority'' in 2002, under 
President Bush's watch, Fast Track has been utilized to unjustifiable 
ends. Wages are flat, our trade deficit has skyrocketed and good-paying 
manufacturing jobs have been lost by the thousands.
  Increased imports from low-paid workers abroad, combined with threats 
made to workers by companies to move operations overseas, drive 
American workers' wages down. Through the 1950s and 1960s, the American 
middle-class grew and prospered. In 1973, the average U.S. worker made 
$16.06 an hour. Today, after adjusting for inflation, that same worker 
would make only $16.11 per hour.
  In stark contrast to hourly wages, average U.S. worker productivity 
has nearly doubled over the same period. Clearly, the divide in America 
between the ``haves'' and ``have-nots'' is growing, and the richest 
few, along with multi-national corporations, are the big winners under 
our nation's flawed trade policy.

[[Page 5386]]

  Up until 1973, the U.S. experienced relatively balanced trade, with 
small trade surpluses being the norm ($1.9 billion surplus in 1973). 
Since Fast Track was granted in 1974, the U.S. had a trade surplus in 
just one year (1975). Now, in 2006, our nation's trade deficit has 
skyrocketed to over $760 billion.
  Our trade deficit has more than doubled since President Bush took 
office. For 2001, our trade deficit was $362 billion. Last year, our 
trade deficit reached yet another new record high at $764 billion.
  Since WWII, good paying manufacturing jobs have been the driving 
force behind our nation's robust middle class allowing families to own 
homes, send their children to college and gain access to quality, 
affordable healthcare.
  Since President Bush took office, the U.S. has lost 3 million 
manufacturing jobs. Michigan alone has lost 213,000 manufacturing jobs, 
or about one-quarter of the state's manufacturing jobs.
  My record is clear. I voted against the Trade Act of 2002, which 
mistakenly granted this Administration ``trade promotion authority.'' 
Now, it is time for Congress to put the brakes on the Bush 
Administration's failed trade policies and come to our senses to 
realize the damage done. First, we must not make matters worse. 
Congress should reject the pending free trade agreements with Peru, 
Colombia and Panama. My colleagues should not be misled. Fast track 
trade negotiating authority is not required to negotiate or approve 
free trade agreements.
  Second, we need serious, thoughtful review of our nation's trade 
policies and their impact on wages, jobs and our trade balance. Pitting 
American industries against one another, political gamesmanship, and 
manipulation and sloganeering must come to an end so that Congress and 
the Administration should get down to business.
  The United States is a world leader, and we must enact trade policies 
that truly encourage positive standards and quality of life for both 
the United States and our foreign partners. Reject renewal of Fast 
Track trade negotiation authority, so we can get back to sensible and 
fair trade policy.

                          ____________________