[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13290-13291]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           U.S. TRADE POLICY

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the trade policies set in Washington and 
negotiated across the globe have a direct impact on places such as 
Toledo and Steubenville, on Cleveland and Hamilton. That is why voters 
in my State of Ohio and across the country sent a message loudly and 
clearly in November demanding a new direction, a very different 
direction for our Nation's trade policy.
  Working men and women in Ohio know that job loss doesn't just affect 
the worker or just the worker's family; job loss--especially the kind 
of job loss we have seen in the last 5 years, the kind of manufacturing 
job loss--when we see that kind of job loss in the thousands, that job 
loss devastates communities. It hurts the local business owner, the 
drugstore, the grocery store, the neighborhood restaurant. It hurts 
communities. It hurts schools. It hurts police forces. It hurts fire 
departments.
  Two weeks ago, leadership in the House of Representatives and in the 
White House announced a new outline for trade policy, one that included 
labor and environmental standards. The fact that the Bush 
administration was willing to negotiate at all, the fact that they were 
willing to pay even lip service to labor and environmental standards, 
underscores the November elections' importance.
  Every Member of Congress, in the Senate and in the other body, the 
House of Representatives, is now on notice that we will be held 
accountable for our trade votes--accountable to workers, accountable to 
business owners--accountable for our trade votes and accountable for 
American trade policy when we go home. However, since the announcement 
made by the Bush administration and some congressional leaders in the 
House about labor and environmental standards, backpedaling by the 
administration and sidestepping by supporters of the deal indicate that 
we may be in for another round of more of the same in our trade policy.
  The administration already has hinted at side deals for labor 
standards instead of putting those standards in the central, core part 
of the agreement. They are talking now about not reopening negotiations 
with Peru and not reopening negotiations with Panama but instead adding 
a little sidebar, a little letter, a little statement of support for 
environmental labor standards but not actually putting them in the 
central core of the agreement. If that is the case, if these labor and 
environmental standards are not in the agreement but in a side letter 
of some sort, then really, frankly, nothing new is being offered. It is 
the same old jalopy with a new coat of paint.
  Voters in my State demanded real change, not symbolic gestures.
  What is even more disturbing about the new outline is it appears to 
rely in good faith on the administration to enforce standards. Given 
this administration's abysmal record on enforcement of labor standards 
and environmental standards, not just in trade agreements but 
enforcement of those standards in our domestic economy, we know what 
this administration--we know its failed environmental policies. Given 
this administration's abysmal record on enforcement, relying on blind 
trust isn't just foolish, it is downright irresponsible.
  The Jordan Free Trade Agreement passed by the House--I supported it 
and many others did; it passed in both Houses overwhelmingly--the 
Jordan Free Trade Agreement was once held up as a standard in labor 
provisions. It had strong labor and environmental standards in it. It 
passed in the year 2000, but come 2001, with a new President of the 
United States, George Bush, and a new U.S. Trade Representative, Bob 
Zoellick, the Bush administration simply turned the other way while 
rampant human-trafficking plagues that nation of Jordan. Shortly after 
the Jordan agreement was enacted, the new USTR, Bob Zoellick, sent a 
letter to Jordan's Trade Minister saying the United States simply 
wouldn't enforce the labor provisions. So even though we passed a trade 
agreement with labor standards inside the core agreement, this 
administration, this same crowd who now says they will enforce labor 
standards and they now will enforce environmental standards, this same 
crowd sent a letter to the Jordan Trade Minister saying: We are not 
enforcing, we are not going to push you, we are not going to push you 
on dispute resolution to enforce those labor standards.

[[Page 13291]]

  Today, as a result, Bangladeshi workers enter Jordan--from one of the 
poorest countries in the world--they have their passports confiscated, 
and work in some cases up to 20 hours a day without breaks. Then Jordan 
exports those goods to the United States. There is no enforcement of 
labor standards, no enforcement of environmental standards. There is 
simply the continuation of the exploitation of some of the poorest 
workers in the world in order to reap more profits and backdoor those 
products into the United States.
  If that is the plan, if that is the Bush administration plan--forget 
what they talk about on labor standards, forget what they promise on 
environmental standards--if that is the plan for Peru, if that is the 
plan for Panama, if that is the plan for Colombia, if that is the plan 
for South Korea, then they will simply not get the support for these 
trade agreements. They will not get the support from those who talked 
about fair trade in their campaigns, not from small business owners, 
not from small manufacturers such as the local tool and die shop in 
Akron, the local machine shop in Dayton, not from workers across the 
country who say: We don't want more of the same.
  That is what the elections last fall were all about. I believe every 
single new Democratic Member of the Senate--there are nine of us--every 
single one of us has talked about fair trade, not free trade. If this 
administration thinks by simply saying: We are for labor standards, we 
are for environmental standards, we will put it in a little side letter 
here, and then a wink and a nod to their friends in the National 
Association of Manufacturers, a wink and a nod to the large 
corporations that benefit from slave labor and child labor, simply 
giving them a wink and a nod, if they think this Senate and the other 
body are going to pass this kind of legislation, they are wrong. We 
know our trade policies have failed. As I said, if they bring back this 
kind of trade agreement for Peru, for Panama, for Colombia, for Korea 
without labor and environmental standards in the core agreement and 
without real commitments to enforce those labor and environmental 
standards, then those trade agreements aren't going to fly here.
  We know our trade policies have failed. When I first ran for 
Congress, our trade deficit in 1992 was $38 billion. Even in those 
days, President Bush--the first President Bush--said a $1 billion trade 
deficit represented about 13,000 jobs, mostly manufacturing--many 
manufacturing jobs. So if you had a $1 billion trade deficit, it meant 
it was costing your country a net loss of 13,000 jobs. If you had a 
trade surplus, it was a gain of 13,000 jobs. That was then a $38 
billion trade deficit in 1992. In 2006, our trade deficit was in the 
vicinity of $800 billion--$800 billion. That means the trade deficit 
has grown by a factor of 20. If it is 13,000 jobs for every $1 billion 
trade deficit, you do the math. It is clear this trade policy has 
failed. It has failed our workers. It has failed our small 
manufacturers. It has failed our restaurants and our drugstores in 
those communities that suffer devastating job loss. It has failed our 
families. It has failed our country.
  The current system is not sustainable. Senator Dorgan has said: We 
want trade, and plenty of it, but under new rules. That means 
benchmarks. When we pass trade agreements, we have to show how much 
this has done for America's wages, how much it has done for American 
job creation, and we want accountability, something we have never 
brought to the table on these trade agreements. That does not mean 
trying to pass off more of the same kind of trade policy, packaging it 
in a different way, speaking of all the platitudes of the 
administration and that some others in the House and Senate have spoken 
about, just simply saying it is new and improved.
  Now is not the time for more bad trade deals. We need to pause. We 
need to have a national conversation about a new direction for trade in 
the 21st century, a conversation that includes everybody.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________