[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7672-7678]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          FAILED TRADE POLICY

  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.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
  I rise with my colleagues here this evening to talk about our failed 
trade policy.
  As a former mill worker at Great Northern Paper Company in East 
Millinocket, Maine, I know firsthand how these trade deals have 
crippled our manufacturing base in the State of Maine.
  When I ran for Congress, I told the people of the State of Maine I 
would fight for them, for their jobs and for their families every 
single day. Mainers know that these trade deals have left them behind. 
You can go almost anywhere in my district and find an abandoned mill or 
a vacant factory. They are painful reminders of what was and is no 
longer to be. Their jobs have been outsourced to countries that pay 
slave wages. How can we compete when our own workforce has been left 
behind?
  The election results proved that the American public is sick and 
tired of their jobs being outsourced. They want a Congress that fights 
for our workers and businesses. They want this country to move in a new 
direction. They want this Congress to move in a new direction.
  I will be the first to say that I am concerned when I am hearing from 
my fellow colleagues that we can't cut side deals on trade agreements. 
Some say maybe we can make a few concessions on both sides and a deal 
is cut. The American workforce is sick of these trade deals, these side 
deals being cut. They don't want more trade adjustment assistance; they 
want their jobs.
  Some say that the pending free trade agreements, that we should do a 
side letter to appease labor, or maybe a couple tiny provisions that 
fix the environment. My mom always told me, you can't fix what's 
broken. Our trade policies are broken.
  It is time to start from the ground up. It is time to renegotiate the 
Peru, the Colombia and the Panama Free Trade Agreements. With the TPA 
deadlines quickly approaching, we cannot rush something through. The 
American public deserves to have the new majority renegotiate these 
trade deals.
  This election sent a strong message. It is to change course in what 
the Bush administration has done with our failed trade policies. There 
is no quick fix to this solution, not when these agreements are based 
on a flawed model. These agreements compromise our port security, they 
privatize Social Security, they threaten our intellectual property 
rights, they undermine States' rights, and they infringe on access to 
medicines.
  I strongly agree with Chairman Levin that we need to address these 
issues, and we need to do it now. Nonbinding side letters are not good 
enough.
  Regarding the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, there is no fix that can 
make this agreement acceptable. It is highly offensive that the Bush 
administration even initiated negotiations with a country infamous for 
having the highest rate of trade unionists assassinated. More than 
2,000 labor union activists have been murdered in Colombia since 1990. 
More than 2,000 labor unionists murdered since 1990, with 60 
assassinated in 2006 alone, one per week. Until the Colombian 
Government changes this abominable situation, the United States should 
not offer any enhanced trade relations to Colombia.
  And then let me touch on the biggest issue of them all: fast track. 
Fast track delegates away Congress' constitutional authority. It 
undermines our right to have a say in what goes on in these trade 
deals. We must replace this outdated, failed trade negotiating system.
  Over 3 million American manufacturing jobs, one out of every six 
manufacturing jobs, have been lost during the fast track era. Before 
fast track, we had balanced trade. The United States trade deficit has 
exploded as imports surged. The worldwide gulf between the rich and the 
poor has widened since fast track.
  I could go on and on and on about fast track. Fast track has put us 
on the wrong track, and it is time to turn it around. Any acceptable 
version of fast track must include the bare minimum of some of the 
following:
  It would restore Congress' right to decide which countries it is in 
our national interest to negotiate new agreements. It would set 
mandatory requirements for what must and must not be in every 
agreement, including core labor and environmental standards. It would 
require Congress to vote on a trade agreement content before it can be 
signed, and it would not allow for secretive negotiations. A new 
negotiating system must include more oversight on how past agreements 
are actually working. It would reinstate our system of checks and 
balances.
  I am pleased that some of my colleagues are here this evening to join 
me in this trade discussion, and I look forward to their remarks. I 
would like to thank them for their leadership as well in this area.
  I now would like to introduce Congressman Phil Hare, a newly elected 
freshman from Illinois, to be the next speaker. Phil knows firsthand 
about how these trade agreements affect our manufacturing industries. 
Prior to working for Congressman Lane Evans, Phil's first job was at 
the Seaford Clothing Factory in Rock Island. During the 13 years, he 
cut linen for men's suits there.
  Phil served as a union leader and as the president of Unite Here 
Local 617. As district director for then-Congressman Lane Evans, Phil 
Hare fought for the working men and women in his district. Phil is a 
leader among the freshman class on trade issues.

[[Page 7673]]

  Phil, I want to thank you for your tremendous leadership on this very 
important issue that affects men and women throughout the United 
States. I yield to the good gentleman.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. HARE. I thank the gentleman from Maine, and I also want to just 
commend you for your leadership on this whole issue of trade.
  When I first came to this body, I campaigned on the sole issue of 
trade; and they said there are a couple of people you need to look up 
right away. I needed to look up Representative Marcy Kaptur and Mike 
Michaud for standing up for ordinary people.
  With all due respect to the President, I don't consider this fast 
track legislation; it is wrong track legislation. I am a card-carrying 
capitalist, and I have said this many, many times. But I came out of an 
industry, the clothing and textile industry. But, for the life of me, I 
don't understand, this President just doesn't seem to get it. We keep 
losing good-paying jobs overseas, and for the life of me we are one of 
the few countries I know that actually subsidize our manufacturers for 
going overseas, if you look at the east coast and look what happened in 
your area from Maine all the way down and you look what happened in the 
Midwest with Maytag.
  Today I sat and I listened to a person from my district, Dave Bevard, 
who worked at the Maytag plant. He had 32 years in and his wife had 30, 
62 years between the both of them. Here, these workers gave up two wage 
concessions, if you can believe that, to keep this plant open, $24 
million from our State of Illinois in tax breaks to this company; and 
at the end of the day they ended up moving to Sonora, Mexico. The CEO 
of the company said, ``I don't care about the workers and the 
community. I am here to make a dollar for my shareholders.'' It didn't 
matter about the health care and the pensions.
  And Dave brought up today, you know, we have trade readjustment funds 
and things of that nature, but, as the gentleman knows, by the time you 
get them you have to decide between your unemployment compensation and 
whether you are going to be retrained. Then they tell you, well, you 
should go into a field that is growing, maybe like health care. So he 
said, of the 2,500 people that lost their jobs at that plant, 400 
people tried the medical care, thinking they were going to get into 
medical care. Well, that worked great for the schooling, but when it 
came to practical exercise to go in and be able to learn the trade and 
be able to do it, they only had room for 30 people. So, 370 people are 
left out in the cold.
  Another woman wanted to go through and wanted to get into daycare and 
needed a 1-year program at the community college. They only had a 2-
year program; and they said, well, maybe she should just try being a 
cosmetologist instead.
  When you take a look at the way we do this and the way we treat our 
workers, I said today this is a moral issue that I think we in this 
Congress have.
  I support trade. I will always support trade. I know our country 
needs it. But I ask, at what price? And I want to know why is it that 
this President feels he doesn't have to basically come to Congress for 
anything, as you know, but particularly when it comes to the trade 
issue. He can outsource it, he can fast track, and he can do whatever 
he wants to do, and there is no congressional accountability, no 
oversight. We are left with a package we can't even vote up or down 
half the time because he has the secret back-door deals.
  I, for one, as a freshman am tired. I am tired of going back to my 
district and seeing people like Dave Bevard and his wife who, by the 
way, has cancer. He is going to lose his health care.
  And I ask a question very simply of this administration and for those 
on the other side of the aisle and maybe some within my own party who 
think that this is the way to go. I want you to come to Gifford, and I 
want you to see what is left of that Maytag plant, and I want you to 
see the people whose lives have been affected by this and the lack of 
health care.
  Their prescription programs that they had, now they have lost their 
prescription drug program that they had, it equals for some of them 
their prescriptions per month, the pension that they receive. Now, they 
don't even get a pension, they have no health care, and somebody is 
going to try to convince me that this trade deal is going to work and 
that this was in the best interest of our manufacturing base?
  Now I can't in good conscience do that. I think we had some 
interesting hearings today, but, ultimately, we have to be able to 
stand up.
  And I agree with the gentleman from Maine. We had a directive I think 
this past election. I campaigned on this issue, as you know; and I 
campaigned very strongly about it. I said, look, I support trade, I 
support fair trade. So I am a fair trader, and I think that is what we 
should all be. And I think we have an obligation, as I said before, to 
ask this administration but also ask of ourselves: Are we here to 
represent the Dave Bevards of this country? Or are we here to represent 
the CEO that took the jobs to Sonora, Mexico?
  And they are going to keep doing it. Every single day we read of 
another small factory going. My clothing factory that I worked in was 
shut down, and now I hear that the remaining 350 people that were 
working there are hanging by a thread. Translation: In about a year, 
that plant is going to go simply because nobody wants to have the 
initiative and the courage to stand up for an industry that has been 
hit, or dumping its steel. It goes on and on.
  I don't want to use up the whole hour, but if the gentleman would 
just let me conclude by saying this. I would like to ask some of our 
folks on the other side that call me a protectionist, and I looked in 
the dictionary, and I think that means you are trying to protect 
something, and I am, and I know we are. We are trying to protect a 
basic fundamental right for people to have a decent-paying job.
  You know, these aren't CEOs. These are ordinary people who want to 
put their kids through school, have health care. They want to be able 
to work, and work very hard, and be able to retire and not have to 
worry about it.
  I am not going to stop on this issue, and I again applaud the 
gentleman from Maine for courage that he has. And I will promise you 
this, that I have said many times: I don't know how long I am going to 
be in this body, but as long as I am I am going to continue to come to 
this floor, I am going to continue to talk about those lost jobs and 
say we have to start thinking differently than we have before.
  We have an obligation, and our obligation is to stand up for ordinary 
people. That is what I have always been about. And I think the basic 
job of a Member of Congress, when you really get down to it, after all 
is said and done, is all of us are here to do the best we can to help 
ordinary people out, to make their lives better, not complicated.
  So to my friends on the other side that might think I am off base, I 
am not going to support fast track. I will vote against it. I am not 
going to have any part of outsourcing one more job from my district or 
from this country. I am going to stand up for workers, whether they are 
from Illinois or Maine or Ohio or Florida or wherever they are from, 
because we have a responsibility to do it. It is the right thing to do.
  And, again, I just can't thank you enough, Congressman, for taking 
the lead on this. You and Representative Kaptur have been great 
inspirations to me as a freshman here and campaigned on this issue of 
trade.
  And, by the way, I would just say to people listening, it is okay to 
run on things you believe in and lead with your heart and on the right 
issues, and every now and then the good guys do come out on top. So I 
thank the gentleman for allowing me to participate this evening and 
look forward to any questions or discussion you might have.
  Mr. MICHAUD. I thank you very much, Congressman Hare.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Watson). All Members are reminded to 
address their comments to the Chair.
  Mr. MICHAUD. I apologize, Madam Speaker.

[[Page 7674]]

  I would like to thank the gentleman for his kind remarks. It is I who 
ought to thank you and the freshman class for your leadership in this 
area. You have actually brought forward a whole new fresh discussion 
about trade and what it has done to this country. So I really 
appreciate your leadership and look forward to continuing working with 
you as we move forward in this area.
  There is another Member I would like to recognize, not a member of 
the freshman class, but this Member has been a true advocate for fair 
trade. Congresswoman Kaptur has been a tremendous leader in this fair 
trade fight.
  Marcy came to Congress from a working-class background. Her family 
operated a small grocery where her mother worked, after serving on the 
original organizing committee of an auto trade union at Champion Spark 
Plug. Marcy knows firsthand how these unfair trade deals have affected 
industry throughout her congressional district in Ohio and has been a 
key player in our trade working group in the House.
  I really appreciate all the leadership and expertise that you have 
brought forward on this issue, Congresswoman Kaptur. You have been a 
true leader, and you have been a mentor to me ever since I got elected 
to Congress. So thank you, and I yield you such time as you may 
consume.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Congressman Michaud, thank you so much for bringing us 
together tonight and for your great contributions to this debate. That 
is probably the major economic debate this Nation faces. It is a real 
pleasure to be here with you this evening. I thank you for yielding me 
some time.
  And to Congressman Phil Hare from Illinois, who has just hit the 
ground running here and who I think is such a tremendous addition to 
our membership and to this great struggle for the cause of all people 
in our country, the dignity of their work, the future for their 
families and the future of our communities.
  And to Congressman Steve Lynch of Massachusetts, who works so 
respectably as an ironworker. He looks like that man that they have on 
that iron beam over New York City, that famous poster. Whenever I look 
at him, I think I see him. He is the one who is swinging the golf club 
with the ball or something.
  It is a pleasure to be here with these gentlemen tonight, because 
they have all worked for a living, their families have worked for a 
living, and we need more people who bring this experience to the 
Congress of the United States.
  The plant that Congressman Michaud discussed, Champion spark plugs, 
no longer exists in Toledo. Back when I was first elected, we tried so 
hard to get the Japanese to buy the spark plugs, the best plugs that 
were made in the whole country, Champion spark plugs.
  I took them to Japan in 1985, and I said to Prime Minister Nakasone, 
``Your companies aren't buying from our premier companies.'' Our trade 
deficit was beginning to really get bad back then, so I said, ``So I 
would like to suggest that we give you these plugs for free for your 
manufacturers, and let them try them.''
  And we learned a lot about the keiratsu system of Japan and what a 
closed system indeed it is and that other companies couldn't bid into 
that production and that these very tight buying chains exist globally. 
Japan has been eating our lunch in the automotive market for a very 
long time now, but the Japanese market still remains closed, with less 
than 3 percent of the cars on their streets from anywhere else in the 
world. They didn't even take Yugos or bugs, VW bugs. So that market is 
a closed market, and we began to see how difficult it was to engage in 
trade with nations who truly were protectionists.
  Congressman Hare talked about protectionist countries. You can see 
pretty clearly which ones they are when you look at what is on their 
shelves and what is on their streets.
  I am here tonight to say that I have never supported fast track, 
because I don't believe Congress should ever let a fast ball go through 
here that we don't grab ahold of. And the problem is you can't amend a 
trade agreement. So even if you want to, as happened when we debated 
NAFTA, I can't remember a more piercing debate in this Congress other 
than votes on war. That NAFTA debate was the most significant economic 
debate we had here in 1993; and at the time that we debated that, it 
was purposefully brought to the floor in a way that we could not amend.
  So let me just take one issue. We are going to have discussions this 
year on the issue of immigration. When that bill came down here, there 
were many of us who said we have to deal with the displacement that is 
going to happen in Mexico in the farm sector, because there is no 
transition provision in NAFTA and no currency exchange, that we knew 
that the Mexican farmers were going to be thrown off of their community 
oriented farming ejido systems. It has happened. No one wants to 
recognize it has happened, but over 2 million people were disgorged 
from their villages and towns, and they are wandering the continent, 
providing an endless stream of labor that is dirt cheap there and here. 
It is almost as if they didn't want us to talk about it because that 
fast track bill came through here.
  Now, the NAFTA model is being used, they want to expand it to 
Colombia, they want to put it to Peru.
  I wanted to say a word about Colombia this evening. I agree with 
Congressman Michaud. There is no nation in the world that allows the 
assassination of their labor leaders more than Colombia. Why would we 
want to sign a free trade agreement with a country that isn't free? Our 
cardinal rule ought to be: Free trade among free people.
  When we look at what happened in Colombia recently, Chiquita brands, 
remember Chiquita Banana, which is headquartered in my State of Ohio, 
has just pleaded guilty to funding terrorism in Colombia. Several what 
are called unidentified high-ranking corporate officers of a subsidiary 
of Chiquita paid $1.7 million from 1997 through 2004 to fund the United 
Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, a group that our country says is a 
terrorist organization. And Chiquita also bribed other groups inside of 
Colombia.
  The company has now admitted to this wrongdoing and agreed to pay $25 
million in fines. They said that the money was paid to protect 
employees from violent paramilitaries who fight over the banana 
plantations. I wouldn't wish working on a Colombian banana plantation 
to any living human being.

                              {time}  2000

  And yet we are about to sign a free trade agreement under fast track 
that we can't amend and stand up for the dignity of people in Colombia.
  We know that the Colombian worker isn't safe; yet the President 
evidently thinks it is okay to sign an agreement where there is no 
transparent justice system, where bribes and protections and murders 
are every-day occurrences. Where are our values as a country? Why has 
it taken us almost 20 years from 1985 to 1995 to 2005, now it is 2007, 
to bring this issue up? We had to have so many casualties in this 
country. We tried 23 years ago so the hurt would not be so bad. And the 
gentlemen that are here this evening, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Hare, 
Mr. Ellison, they represent those who are suffering in our country. 
There are people suffering in other countries, too.
  I want to say I associate myself with the gentleman's remarks this 
evening. And what you said about those who have been murdered in 
Colombia, we know 72 were murdered in 2006, and the gentleman talked 
about prior assassinations of those who were trying to form groups 
there so they could earn a decent wage. Almost none have been 
prosecuted. It is like their lives have no meaning. So we need to set a 
higher standard. Maybe our Constitution really should stand for 
something and we should look for an agreement among the peoples of the 
Americas that uses democracy and liberty as its fundamental principles, 
not the diminishing of workers, be they farmers or industrial workers.
  I oppose the Colombian free trade agreement and stand up for human 
rights, the middle class, the rule of

[[Page 7675]]

law, and everything that this Nation should be committed to.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you, and I look forward to working with you as we 
move forward.
  We also have been joined by Mr. Ellison, who represents the Fifth 
District in Minnesota with distinction. Congressman Ellison believes 
NAFTA and CAFTA have encouraged the movement of manufacturing and 
agricultural jobs out of Minnesota to be done under sweat-shop 
conditions in other countries.
  A 2003 report by the Minnesota Fair Trade Coalition reported that at 
least a quarter and likely one-third of the net 45,000 manufacturing 
jobs that Minnesota lost from 2001 to 2003 were directly attributable 
to trade deals such as NAFTA.
  Congressman Ellison has been a leader among the freshman class, along 
with Congressman Hare, in fighting for fairer trade deals. I yield to 
Congressman Ellison.
  Mr. ELLISON. Thank you. I thank you for your leadership on this issue 
of fair trade. I think that the time is right, the time is now to begin 
talking about fair trade. I want to commend all of the Members here 
tonight talking about this critical issue.
  This election sent a strong message: no staying the course on Bush's 
failed trade policy. So now what do we hear, that the Bush 
administration wants to send to Congress NAFTA expansion agreements 
with Peru and Colombia. Consider the problems that Democrats have 
endlessly raised in writing, in hearings, on the floor, think about 
these problems and the administration's trade agreement model, how we 
have continually demonstrated that the Bush trade model is killing 
American jobs and is an enemy of the middle class.
  Then consider what the administration chose to put in the deals 
anyway. Democrats are for consumers' right to affordable medicine. The 
2002 trade negotiation authority instructed the Bush administration not 
to lard up and pack up these trade deals with new protections for big 
pharmaceuticals that could cut poor consumers off from access to 
medications and cause endless deaths in poor countries. But the 
administration inserted this poison pill into the FTAs. The TRIPS-plus 
requirement needs to come out.
  Democrats are against privatization of Social Security. We believe 
the elderly in whatever nation they are in should have safeguards for 
their security as they age. Yet the Peru free trade agreement requires 
Peru to open its social security system for privatization. That has to 
come out.
  Democrats believe that foreign businesses operating on U.S. soil 
shouldn't have greater rights than U.S. businesses. And we believe that 
our environmental and health safeguards cannot be exposed to attack in 
international tribunals. But the administration included the extreme 
foreign investor rights and investor state enforcement of NAFTA's 
Chapter 11. That needs to come out as well.
  Democrats believe in the right of Congress and the President to 
protect this Nation's security. We have made it clear that the trade 
pacts cannot subject our decisions about who should operate U.S. ports 
to attacks in international tribunals or demands for compensation. Yet 
although the Dubai Ports World operates Peru's ports and thus would 
have the right to such a claim, you included the ``landslide port 
activities'' in the Peru and Colombian agreements. That has to come 
out.
  Democrats believe in reducing poverty in the developing world. We 
believe in providing farmers in the Andean nations opportunities to 
earn a living without resorting to illegal drugs that will end up on 
our streets here in the United States. But despite the warnings from 
Peruvian and Colombian Governments and the record of NAFTA displacing 
1.7 million compesinos, the President has insisted on zeroing out corn, 
rice and bean tariffs in those things. That has to come out.
  Democrats believe consumers have a right to safe food. But the 
administration included provisions allowing food imports that don't 
meet our standards. That needs to come out.
  Democrats believe that when governments spend tax dollars, they must 
do so in the best interest of the taxpayers. But the administration 
included language in these FTA procurement texts that could expose 
Davis-Bacon prevailing wage laws, renewable energy standards and more 
to challenge. That must come out.
  It would only require striking a sentence here or a word there to 
remove the FTA terms that directly conflict with these core Democratic 
Party values and goals.
  And then there is what is missing, the enforceable labor and 
environmental standards in the core of the text of the agreement equal 
to the commercial provisions.
  Regarding the Colombia FTA, there is no fix to that and there is 
nothing that can make this agreement acceptable in my view. It is 
highly offensive that the Bush administration would exploit the 
enormous discretion fast track provides even to initiate negotiations 
with a country infamous and, unfortunately, famous for having the 
highest rate of trade union assassinations. More than 2,000 labor 
activists have been murdered in Colombia since 1990. Sixty were 
assassinated in 2006 alone; one per week. The Colombian Army is 
implicated in many of these murders, but few have been prosecuted. 
Until the Colombian Government changes its situation, the United States 
should not offer any enhanced trade relations to Colombia.
  Mr. Michaud, thank you for your excellent work and leadership. The 
American people deserve fair trade agreements. The American Congress 
must take back its constitutional authority to make sure that any 
agreement that the United States engages in is an agreement that is in 
the best interest of the American working people.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce my co-
founder of the Congressional Labor and Working Families Caucus, a 
member of the House Trade Working Group, Mr. Steve Lynch.
  During his career as an ironworker, Congressman Lynch worked at a 
General Motors plant in Framingham, Massachusetts, the General Dynamics 
shipyard in Quincy, Massachusetts, and the United States Steel plant in 
Gary, Indiana, all of which were shut down due to foreign competition 
and unfavorable trade conditions.
  Mr. Lynch's firsthand experience in seeing the effects of plant 
closures on American workers and on local communities has led him to 
focus on efforts to improve United States trade policy and help protect 
not only American workers but also American businesses which also feel 
strongly about these trade deals and have been working very closely 
with the United States Business and Industry Council to make sure that 
we have fair trade deals. I look forward to hearing Congressman Lynch's 
remarks.
  Mr. LYNCH. Thank you very much. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
want to join the rest of the Members here tonight to say how proud we 
are of the fashion in which you have defended American workers and led 
this cause for all Americans.
  I rise tonight to address the House on the matter of the pending 
trade agreements with Peru and Colombia and the general trade promotion 
authority.
  There has been much talk over the past couple of weeks and all of us 
have heard it about the desire of our country to export democracy to 
the Middle East. I just have to say that I am a firm believer that you 
do not export democracy through the Defense Department, as has been 
suggested by this administration.
  What we are talking about here in these trade agreements, this is how 
you export democracy. If you are going to do it at all, it is through 
trade agreements which give other workers in other countries a fair 
opportunity to have a decent standard of living, and it is really 
incumbent upon us through the Commerce Department and these trade 
agreements to make sure that at the same time we protect our own 
workers, we also give a fair chance at a decent living to those of our 
neighbors internationally.
  Just like the job loss that has been described by Mr. Hare, Ms. 
Kaptur, Mr. Ellison, and Mr. Michaud, as the

[[Page 7676]]

gentleman from Maine indicated, I worked at a General Motors plant in 
Framingham, Massachusetts, and I saw the impact in Massachusetts and in 
Framingham of those 2,300 workers getting laid off.
  The same thing happened at the General Dynamics shipyard where I 
worked in Quincy, Massachusetts, and I saw the impact there, as well as 
the steel plants in the Midwest that I worked at which have also been 
closed down.
  What really gets me is as an ironworker hearing the talk in 
Washington, especially this administration, they talk about job loss 
like they talk about the weather, like it is something beyond their 
control, like it is a natural disaster that they have nothing to do 
with, when in reality when you look at the policies this administration 
has put forward, it is a deliberate cause and effect. The reason we are 
losing jobs is because of the policies that we have adopted.
  Just like so many other so-called free trade agreements, this 
Colombia and Peru trade agreement contain no meaningful language or 
effective labor and environmental standards for workers in those 
countries, nor does it provide adequate protections to our own workers.
  Madam Speaker, these trade agreements are based on deeply flawed 
models of NAFTA and CAFTA. We continually repeat the same mistakes and 
offer the same problematic language in our trade agreements. Instead of 
enforceable labor provisions, these free trade agreements merely 
suggest that those nations that we deal with adopt and enforce their 
own labor laws. They offer no assurance that existing labor problems 
will be resolved, and they allow labor law to be weakened or eliminated 
in the future with no possibility of recourse for those workers.
  From our experience, we understand that attaching nonbinding side 
letters is not enough; especially when you consider, as my colleagues 
mentioned tonight, the record of deplorable labor conditions in the two 
countries under consideration: Peru and Colombia. They are among the 
worst examples of labor laws and protections and enforcements in the 
world.
  Peru, as my colleague from Maine has pointed out, the U.S. State 
Department documented the failure of Peru's own labor laws to comply 
with U.S. internationally recognized worker rights and ILO core labor 
standards. Our own State Department included violations of child labor 
laws with an estimated one-quarter of all Peruvian children between the 
ages of 6 and 17 employed.
  The State Department also indicated Peru's noncompliance with minimum 
wage guidelines with roughly half of the workforce, about 50 percent of 
the workforce in Peru, earning the minimum wage or below. These 
conditions are a far cry from free trade.
  Instead, American workers are being asked to compete with underpaid, 
exploited and child labor workforces. One would think with such 
deplorable conditions in Peru, that the U.S. would insert enforceable 
labor standards in the agreement. However, the labor protections are 
weak and nonbinding.
  The same goes for Colombia, a country that is infamous for having the 
highest trade union assassinations in the world. Mr. Michaud pointed 
out that more than 2,000 labor activists have been murdered in Colombia 
since 1990.

                              {time}  2015

  Until the Colombian government takes action to change this volatile 
situation, the United States should not offer any enhanced trade 
agreements with Colombia.
  We also must consider the national security implications of these 
agreements. Both Peru and Colombia harbor terrorist organizations with 
heavy involvement in narcotrafficking. While both countries have 
established financial intelligence units for analyzing and 
disseminating financial information connected with anti-terrorist 
financing regimes, greater cooperation from the Peruvian and Colombian 
government is crucial in undermining the funding mechanisms for these 
organizations. This crucial issue of national security cannot be 
overlooked when we consider these trade agreements.
  Madam Speaker, while sanctions and serious remedies are granted to 
the commercial trade and investment provisions of these free trade 
agreements, the labor, environmental and international security 
standards are completely ineffectual.
  There is no quick fix that can make trade agreements with these 
countries work for Colombian and Peruvian workers.
  To truly strengthen the trade agreements, Congress must also 
strengthen its negotiating mechanism. Not only are free trade 
agreements flawed trade models, it is paired with a flawed blueprint 
for negotiation, and that is the trade promotion authority. Congress 
needs a new procedure for trade negotiations because we are being held 
responsible for the damage all over the world. Under the TPA, Congress 
cedes its ability to control the content of these U.S. trade pacts. Yet 
we are stuck time and time again with the political liability for the 
damage that these trade pacts cause.
  This damage falls mainly to the American middle class, but also the 
Peruvian and Colombian agreements are replicating the same model of 
NAFTA and CAFTA that have been disastrous for the U.S. economy. Since 
NAFTA, over 1 million jobs have been lost nationwide, with over 23,000 
jobs lost in my State of Massachusetts alone. This has reduced wage 
payments to U.S. workers by $7.6 billion for just 2004. The 
administration's trade agreement model is killing the American middle 
class, plain and simple.
  Not only has NAFTA been harmful for American workers in Mexico, it 
displaced 1.7 million campesinos and forced them towards overcrowded 
cities and to enter the U.S. illegally. Yet the administration has 
evidently not learned from NAFTA's mistakes. Instead, the 
administration insisted on zeroing out corn, rice and bean tariffs, 
even in the face of warnings from the Peruvian and Colombian 
governments. Such measures will expand the NAFTA disaster to Peru and 
Colombia.
  In their current form, the Peru and Colombian trade agreements will 
only export more economic hardship rather than democracy for foreign 
workers.
  So I urge my colleagues and I urge everyone to reject the Peru and 
Colombian trade agreements until the rights of labor and the 
environmental issues are contained in these agreements. They should be 
rejected.
  I believe in the potential of free trade, like my colleagues Mr. Hare 
and Ms. Kaptur and Mr. Michaud, but along with power, as the major 
world power, we have a responsibility to use that power in a way that 
softens the impact of globalization on our own American workers, as 
well as the workers from Peru and Colombia.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for 
his comments. We have talked a lot about the individual workers, but, 
also, this really devastates the community.
  Three days after I got sworn in as a Member of Congress, the company 
I worked for filed bankruptcy. The Great Northern paid approximately 65 
percent of the tax base in the town of East Millinocket. That had a 
devastating effect on what is going to happen to the school system as 
far as being able to get the taxes owed because of the mill going 
through bankruptcy. But also other small businesses in the community 
actually had to close down because they relied on the workers in the 
mill to help keep the small businesses going and running.
  When you talk about getting retrained, my colleagues I worked with at 
the mill, they were up in the age of 50 or 60 years old. Now they have 
got to go back to school. A lot of them never went to school beyond 
high school. Now they had to go back and try to further their 
education, which is very difficult, and get trained. For what?
  If you look at what happened in our State, we had mill after mill, 
paper machine after paper machine, shut down. It has been very, very 
difficult to find jobs in these communities, and it is very 
disheartening to see grown men and women for the first time in their 
lives that they actually had to go and ask for help for food. They had 
to raise funds to fund the food bank, and it is very difficult.

[[Page 7677]]

  I just hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have seen 
the failed trade policy that has come about starting with NAFTA, and I 
know it was a Democratic administration, but probably conceptually 
sounded good. But now we have got a track record of what NAFTA has 
brought us; and, hopefully, we have learned our lesson and will be able 
to move forward in the manner that we do have fair trade deals.
  I will open it up for any discussion that my colleagues might have.
  Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, one of the things that I think we need to do 
here is we have to start bringing some commonsense back to all of this. 
I think sometimes we think in too broad of thoughts. For example, some 
of the questions I would ask is, why can we not make a television in 
this country anymore, why can we not make stereos, and why can we not 
have textile mills in this country? We have quality workers. They were 
trained. They knew what they were doing.
  My colleague, Representative Kaptur, and I have been talking about 
getting a group of Members of Congress to go around to areas that have 
been hit and to interview those workers who have lost their jobs and to 
put it on tape and to show that to people. I would appreciate the 
gentlewoman might want to comment about that.
  But what we are talking about here, Madam Speaker, is letting 
ordinary people tell us what has happened to them. These are people who 
are our veterans. They fought in the wars. They have come back, and 
they are working in the factory. They lose everything they have ever 
had, and some of them with very little or no notice at all, and yet we 
are so quick to want to find work outside of this country when we have 
people going to bed in this country hungry. Those jobs in Ohio and in 
Maine and in Illinois, they are gone.
  I think we have to start doing something proactive. We have to stop 
this hemorrhaging of jobs, and we have to start thinking about how we 
are going to keep the jobs that we have here and expanding them.
  The late Senator Humphrey said that the American worker was the most 
productive worker in the world, and that has never changed. So I 
appreciate the gentleman for giving me a little bit of time. I thank 
you for allowing me to speak this evening, but perhaps the gentlewoman 
from Ohio might want to comment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Congressman Hare and I are thinking about going to track the whole 
Maytag saga, starting in his home community but then going over to Iowa 
and the whole buyout of Maytag by Wall Street and the shedding of jobs, 
thousands, thousands of jobs.
  Then, in my home State of Ohio, 2,000 more jobs hang in the balance 
at a place called Hoover Vacuum, which was part of this leveraged 
buyout. There was an article recently in the paper about the Maytags 
now being made by Samsung in South Korea, 250,000 of them being 
recalled in this country because they are burning up. They are actually 
catching on fire because water is dripping off the back onto the 
electrical panel. That never happened with Maytag. The Maytag repairman 
really was in that little room, and nobody bothered him.
  I think it is important for us as Members to tell the story, whether 
it is Maytag, whether it is Champion, Dixon Ticonderoga, companies that 
Congressman Michaud worked for, and whether it is Maytag. We need to 
help America give full voice to what is happening.
  It is interesting how little is on television, because some of the 
very same advertisers that own the airwaves do not want this story on 
there.
  I understand Lou Dobbs is coming to Congress this week for a hearing 
that Congressman Sherman is going to have. That is one of the few 
reporters that even talks about this, but for the most part you do not 
see this on the evening news.
  So I am very anxious to travel and tell the Maytag story and then 
maybe tell the story of Brachs Candy and tell the story of some our 
steel mills and to give these workers, first, appreciation for the fine 
products that they have built and it is not their fault and to say that 
we understand, but we know we are outnumbered sometimes, but our 
numbers are growing.
  Mr. HARE. They are.
  Ms. KAPTUR. But our numbers are growing.
  We said when NAFTA passed it was the first battle in a long war, and 
we knew there were going to be casualties, and it literally broke our 
heart because we knew what was going to happen on this continent.
  But now we have the next wave that came in when Congressman Michaud 
arrived; and now, with 39 new Members in your class, Congressman Hare, 
to come here, and you cannot imagine what that means to the more senior 
Members.
  Our only sadness is all the casualties that are out there and all the 
people that have had to suffer. We had hoped to protect America from 
that. We had hoped to protect those families, but we did not have the 
votes. But now I think we have the votes.
  I know one thing, we have the American people. Sometimes things get a 
little convoluted once it comes into this city, but we know the 
American people are with us. Let us make them famous. They are the ones 
that have lived this. Let us put it on our Web sites. Let us tell their 
stories. If others will not, let us do that. They surely deserve that. 
They have lived it.
  Mr. MICHAUD. You are absolutely right. The American people, they do 
get it, and that is why they sent so many freshmen Members here in this 
Congress on the very issue that they talked about in their campaigns, 
and that issue is trade.
  We are heading for disaster, a perfect storm. We have the largest 
budgetary deficit in the United States history, with over 45 percent 
approximately is owned by foreigners. We have the largest trade deficit 
in our history, over $202 billion with China alone. It is over I think 
approximately, what, 7 percent of our GDP?
  We are heading on a collision course. We must make sure that we have 
a strong manufacturing base here in the United States, and that is why 
I look forward to working with my colleagues here on the floor, look 
forward to working with a good, diverse group of the United States 
Business and Industry Council, labor, environmental groups, my 
colleagues across the aisle, Congressman Walter Jones, Duncan Hunter, 
Tim Ryan on our side of the aisle and Betty Sutton.
  So I am really excited. We see new life here in Congress as it 
relates to trade, and we have just got to keep talking about trade so 
that our colleagues will start paying attention to what is going on 
here.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I think that if we look at those people that are trying 
to sell off chunks of America piece by piece, I am offended by that. I 
am truly offended by it.
  When I heard the announcement that Hershey, one of America's logo 
companies, right, was going to move production to Mexico, they are 
already making those big kisses there, I guess. I did not know that. 
When you think of all the dairy jobs in Pennsylvania, you think of all 
of the factory jobs, you think of all of the distribution jobs. I mean, 
this is a massive American company. It was America. It was America. And 
so now we are going to let that go? And then they dumbed down the 
recipe so the chocolate is not as good? They put more wax in it or 
whatever. Come on.
  Do not take the American people for fools. We understand what is 
going on, and we know that we are being sold out. America is being sold 
out from under us, and the American people do not like it at all. They 
expect us to stand up for them.
  So it is just a joy to have you here, to be a part of this effort, 
and to say that the Peru and Colombian free trade agreement that is 
supposed to come through here on fast track, again, it is more just of 
NAFTA. It is more of the same. We should not approve it.
  But what has surprised me the most, as much as the American people 
have been hurt by NAFTA, if we go back, what has shocked me, what I 
never expected or anticipated, was all the casualties across the 
continent in terms of job loss and people hurt. I never

[[Page 7678]]

thought I would see the people of Latin America rise up in Mexico, in 
Brazil, in these massive demonstrations. That has literally humbled me 
as a citizen of the continent to think that the poorest among us, many 
have been risking their lives, to say the pain on them is even greater 
than on us. Their wages have been cut in half. They are losing their 
little stakeholds in Mexico, for example, and they are just being 
thrown off their land, and yet they are going to Mexico City and 
demonstrating by the millions.
  I never anticipated that that would happen, and I think what is going 
to happen here, those folks in Wall Street and other places thought 
they were going to be so smart. I think you are going to see another 
generation come behind us. They are going to create a charter for the 
people of the Americas that we should have created. Some of us wanted 
to, but we did not have the votes here, and I think that the backlash 
on NAFTA and on these kinds of free trade agreements that cause so much 
harm, I think Wall Street has only begun to see what is going to 
happen.
  So I put my faith in the people, I put my faith in the institutions 
of good governance, and I hope that, I do not know how harshly God will 
judge those who have done so much harm, but it did not have to happen.

                              {time}  2030

  We don't have to repeat the mistakes of the past, so I thank my dear 
colleagues here this evening, Congressman Michaud and Congressman Hare 
and Congressman Lynch and Congressman Ellison, for understanding what 
it is going to take to turn this continent and our values to put the 
values forward that were the ideals.
  When I think about John Kennedy and his Alliance For Progress, and 
you go down in Latin America and in every home there is a picture of 
John Kennedy because he cared for them. He cared for them first. I 
thought how did we go so far? Why couldn't we get a majority here? What 
was wrong with us back in the 1990s, that is, that we couldn't put that 
together? I see a rebirth of that spirit of idealism here this evening, 
and I know that the continent is waiting for us.
  I thank my dear colleagues for sponsoring this Special Order this 
evening and for helping us speak on behalf of the people who expect us 
to be here for them.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you, and I thank Congressman Hare once again for 
coming to the floor this evening to talk about it. We have a lot to 
talk about. We have fast track, we have the trade deals we are talking 
about. We will be talking more about the value-added tax as that comes 
forward in a couple of weeks, and also the trade balancing act, which I 
will be resubmitting again in this Congress to look at trade in a 
comprehensive manner.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle. This is an American issue. This is an issue that is important to 
this country, important to our long-term stability.

                          ____________________