[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13361-13369]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1945
                            TRADE AND LABOR

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may

[[Page 13362]]

have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, we are going to be doing several 1-hour 
Special Orders, and we have done them since January. I can't think of 
an issue that is more important and more pressing to us in this Chamber 
than trade and the saving of our jobs back in our districts.
  We are going to be hearing tonight from a number of my colleagues on 
the Congressional Labor and Working Families Caucus, the House Trade 
Working Group, and Members of our side of the aisle that believe it is 
time that working people have somebody stand up and be their voices 
when their voices aren't heard.
  So, Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize a fellow 
Illinoisan from the Illinois delegation, a good friend of mine, someone 
who has took taken it upon himself to stand up for working people. So 
at this time I would like to yield to my colleague, Representative Dan 
Lipinski.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding to me and also for all the hard work that he has done in his 
short career in Congress but in many years before that for America's 
workers.
  I rise today with serious concerns about the trade policy of our 
country. This is a concern shared by tens of millions of Americans who 
have concerns every day about keeping their jobs or they have lost 
their jobs and being unable to find another job where they could 
possibly earn as much money as we see the trade policy of this country 
destroying so many good American jobs.
  This trade policy has contributed to a record high, soaring trade 
deficit. There is wage depression and loss of quality, high-paying 
jobs. With the Panama, Peru, Colombia, and South Korea trade agreements 
pending congressional approval, we must take action now to correct the 
mistakes of previous trade agreements and ensure that any new trade 
agreements benefit all Americans, be enforceable, and be enforced.
  It is clear that our previous trade agreements have not benefited 
everybody. For evidence of this, look no further than North American 
Free Trade agreement and the damaging record that it has provided us. 
Since NAFTA was signed into law, the U.S. has seen enormous amounts of 
production shift to Mexico and Canada, while real wages for U.S. 
workers have fallen.
  My district, which includes parts of Chicago and its suburbs and the 
larger Great Lakes region, has been particularly hard hit by job 
losses. This has been the case especially in manufacturing. Between 
1995 and 2005, the United States lost more than 3 million manufacturing 
jobs. More than one-third of this job loss occurred in the seven Great 
Lakes States, with Chicagoland losing over 100,000 manufacturing jobs.
  Losses in manufacturing jobs are important. I know there are some 
people who say a job is a job. It doesn't matter. If you lose these 
jobs, you will get other jobs.
  Well, first of all, manufacturing jobs are special. America must be 
able to make products, first for our national security, but these 
manufacturing jobs are high-paying jobs, and they are jobs that add so 
much value and create other jobs in this country. They offer high 
wages, good benefits, and they offer jobs to many Americans who do not 
have college degrees. When our manufacturing jobs leave to cheaper 
labor markets, weaker labor standards, lax environmental protections 
and to countries practicing unfair trade practices, workers are left 
behind.
  In my district, I hear constantly from manufacturers who are talking 
about their struggles to compete largely today against China, China's 
manipulated currency, which is largely undervalued. All the work that 
these manufacturers are doing to try to keep jobs in the United States, 
unfortunately, we see so many of these jobs going and so many of these 
plants closing.
  What happens to these workers? Many of them go looking for other 
jobs. They find jobs in the service sector. Ninety-eight percent of the 
net new jobs in 1990s were in the service sector. Unfortunately, 
compensation in the service industry is only 81 percent of the 
manufacturing sector's average; and then the influx of these displaced 
workers just drives down these wages even more.
  Yet still we always hear from those in favor of these flawed trade 
deals that trade creates more jobs than it displaces. Unfortunately, 
the facts show this is not the case. In fact, in the first 10 years 
after NAFTA, the displacement in production from the United States to 
Mexico and Canada directly led to a net loss of 879,000 U.S. jobs. My 
State, Illinois, lost a net total of 47,000 jobs. Mr. Hare knows very 
well, he has seen it in his district, how hard these losses have hit, 
as I have seen them in my district. This has decreased our average 
earnings, our quality of life and our ability to provide for our 
families.
  The fact that our government negotiated trade agreements that yielded 
these kinds of results is, at best, embarrassing. We must ensure that 
these mistakes are not repeated in future trade deals.
  This year congressional leaders on trade have been negotiating with 
the administration to improve the pending trade deals with Panama, 
Peru, Colombia, and South Korea. On May 10, an agreement was announced 
that would incorporate some environmental and labor protections into 
the pending trade agreements with Panama and Peru. While this is 
certainly a start, these negotiations must not be viewed as complete. 
There is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that we do not repeat 
the mistakes of NAFTA, CAFTA, and all our other failed trade deals. I 
hope in the coming weeks and months that Congress can address these 
past failures and make trade work for everyone.
  And in this, also, we must, we must, include addressing currency 
manipulation, especially by China. Lack of enforcement of intellectual 
property, which is, again, another problem that hits Americans very 
hard, unfair subsidies that are given by some countries to some of 
their industries and dumping that is done, all of these greatly hurt 
the United States, and we must make sure that all this is included 
anytime that we are dealing with trade. The livelihood of so many 
Americans, millions and millions of Americans and their families, 
depend on it.
  We are working together with my colleagues here to make sure that we 
create good trade deals for America and Americans. The purpose of 
American trade policy should be to create good jobs for Americans. The 
bottom line should not just be profits. The bottom line has to be the 
lives and the work of millions of Americans, and we must make sure that 
we stand up strong every day for them.
  Mr. HARE. I thank the gentleman.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize a member of our 
freshmen class, someone who has worked very hard and campaigned on this 
issue of standing up for ordinary people, working men and women.
  It is my honor to yield to Representative Keith Ellison.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Hare, thank you for leading us in this very 
important Special Order tonight. Trade is one of the critical issues 
facing our Nation.
  Let me say that on the campaign trail, Mr. Speaker, I found myself 
talking about jobs, employment, and opportunity to people on a daily 
basis. Whether I went to the suburban areas or the heart of 
Minneapolis, I could talk to people about trade. And it wasn't just 
people who were in labor unions. Also, Mr. Speaker, it was people who 
had small businesses.
  One particular business that does a metal plating service was very 
concerned about trade and expressed to me how vital it was that they be 
able to continue to compete with other companies around the world that 
do metal plating but that they were in jeopardy and loss of business 
all the time due to trade policy.
  So whether you are a small business person, farmer, worker, no matter 
who

[[Page 13363]]

you may happen to be, trade policies are affecting our country, and we 
need to be very clear about it.
  As I was on the campaign trail, I ran into people who were recent 
immigrants who were concerned about immigration policy; and, Mr. 
Speaker, here is what they told me. They said, look, prior to NAFTA, we 
were doing okay where we lived, but after NAFTA it got a lot harder to 
run a farm in certain southern parts of our country, and we just 
couldn't make a go of it anymore. So some folks started moving north.
  Now the fact is we have to understand that whether we are talking 
about small business people, trade unionists, people who have been 
forced to immigrate, no matter what you are talking about, trade policy 
is critical. So when I was on the campaign trail, Mr. Speaker, one of 
the things I made very clear to people is that I was concerned about 
trade, that I wanted to do something about trade, and we need a model 
for trade that said that we were not going to export our jobs. We were 
not going to incentivize sending our jobs away. We were going to care 
about the human rights of people abroad. We were going to care about 
our small businesses here, and we were going to have a new trade policy 
that said that Americans who are trying to live the American Dream and 
experience prosperity could do it right here and would not be subject 
to an unfair trade policy of our Nation.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I set about this journey working hard, working with 
my colleagues in the freshmen class, talking about trade and how we 
could get a better trade deal, Mr. Speaker. So I am very concerned 
about these issues.
  On May 10, 2007, the Bush administration and congressional leadership 
talked about a new, with bipartisan cooperation, deal on trade; and I 
am not saying that the deal is bad or good. What I am saying is that we 
have got to be very clear, very careful about how we proceed forward.
  I am happy about the announcement of labor standards and 
environmental standards. Of course, those things are good. But, Mr. 
Speaker, we can't rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. We need a 
whole new boat. We need a new model. We need a new way of going 
forward.
  The ``deal'' covers changes to certain provisions of the Bush-
negotiated free trade agreement with Peru, Panama, but also Colombia 
and South Korea. The legal texts of the proposed agreement have not 
been made public, though summaries have been shared with Members of 
Congress.
  We appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with the AFL-CIO on 
the labor chapter and are pleased to see a commitment to the 
International Labour Organization's standards on the May 10 agreement. 
However, we have got to be careful as we go forward, because, 
ultimately, it is going to be the Bush administration that is 
responsible for enforcing these labor standards; and we are a little 
skeptical. Let me be clear.

                              {time}  2000

  We remain concerned, I remain concerned over the future of ``fast 
track'' authority, and the proposed Korea and Colombia Free Trade 
Agreements. Congress needs to reassert its authority over trade policy 
as we move forward.
  We are concerned, and speaking for myself, I am concerned, that as we 
go forward, that we make sure that we have a new model on trade, a new 
commitment to the working people of America, a new commitment to the 
human rights and environmental rights around the world.
  I fear there are remnants of the failed FTA-WTO trade model in the 
May 10 agreement which will only lead to further hemorrhaging of U.S. 
jobs and the erosion of American manufacturing and service industries.
  Mr. Speaker, over 3 million U.S. manufacturing jobs, one in every 
six, have been lost under the FTA-WTO trade model. By the end of 2005, 
the U.S. had only 14,232,000 manufacturing jobs left, which is nearly 
down 17 million before NAFTA and the WTO went into effect in the early 
1990s.
  What makes these already horrible statistics worse is the fact that 
the U.S. job export crisis is expanding from manufacturing to high-tech 
and service-oriented jobs. Contrary to the belief of Big Business and 
the multinational corporations, the decline of U.S. manufacturing is 
not the result of Americans simply choosing different careers; in fact, 
job loss and wage stagnation are increasingly affecting workers from 
sectors where the U.S. is understood to have a competitive advantage, 
such as professional services and high technology.
  Studies commissioned by the U.S. Government show that as many as 
48,000 jobs in U.S. jobs, including many high-tech jobs, were off-
shored in the first 3 months of 2004 alone. Economy.com estimates that 
nearly 1 million U.S. jobs have been lost to off-shoring since 2000, 
with one in six of those being in IT, financial services and other 
services. Goldman Sachs estimates that about half a million U.S. 
service jobs were off-shored between 2002 and 2005.
  Projections of future job losses are frightening. A University of 
California-Berkeley study concluded that 14 million jobs with an annual 
average salary of almost $40,000 are vulnerable to being sent overseas. 
That is a lot of food, clothing and shelter, Mr. Speaker, and we cannot 
tolerate the loss of these important jobs. Additionally, we can expect 
up to 25 percent of additional IT jobs will be relocated by 2010. We 
can't let it happen. Furthermore, since NAFTA, the U.S. trade deficit 
has risen from about $100 billion to about $717 billion, or 6 percent 
of national income. Mr. Speaker, we can't allow that to continue to 
happen.
  Remember that real wages for U.S. workers are flat or declining, and 
jobs now available in the U.S. economy suffer and offer less pay and 
fewer benefits than jobs that we've lost since 1994.
  Our Nation is in trouble when it comes to trade policy, and we've got 
to have a change. And we don't have confidence, or I don't have 
confidence, in this administration to make sure that any standards are 
being enforced, and we've got to demand that they are.
  So, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to be said about this. I look forward 
to the continuation of this Special Order because trade policy is 
important to the American people. It was a common theme on the campaign 
trail during my election, and from what I've heard from my freshman 
colleagues, they are very concerned about it, too. Mr. Speaker, we need 
a new trade policy.
  I want to yield back at this time, but I want to commend my fellow 
Members and colleagues, and especially freshman Members, on standing up 
for American working people, business people, immigrants, and all kinds 
of people when it comes to trade policy.
  Mr. HARE. I thank my colleague for taking time out of a very busy 
schedule to address this issue. He is an outstanding member of the 
freshman class.
  Mr. Speaker, you are going to hear tonight, by the way, a number of 
Members talking, because this literally goes from Maine to California, 
in terms of the Midwest. This isn't just a regional 1-hour we're having 
this evening.
  I would like to introduce at this time a Member from California. He 
is chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Nonproliferation and Trade, and a very active member on the House Trade 
Working Group, my friend and colleague, Representative Brad Sherman 
from California.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman from Illinois not only for 
recognizing me, but for his leadership in putting together this hour 
and so many other hours. I thank him also for mentioning that the 
subcommittee which I now chair has the trade jurisdiction of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee because there is a great debate in this 
country as to whether to continue, basically, our trade policy or 
whether to go in a completely different direction.
  On the side of continuation, and those who favor continuation, they 
want to dress it up a little bit, add a little perfume, try to make it 
smell a little better, but those who basically want to continue the 
policy come in two forms. One is what I call ``the chattering 
classes,'' the lawyers and

[[Page 13364]]

MBAs, because frankly trade has been a boom to those in those 
particular groups. The whole world looks to the United States for 
lawyering, for management, for advanced management classes. And in 
fact, those at the upper end of business and law have done extremely 
well under our trade agreements, notwithstanding the effect they've had 
on America.
  The second group are those who took Economics 101 and became so 
enamored of the theory, so proud that they understood the basic 
theories, that they chose never to question whether those theories 
actually applied to real life.
  On the other side of this debate are those from the heartland who 
have seen the actual effects of trade on their districts, and those of 
us who are just a little skeptical of a policy that has cost America a 
trade deficit last year of $800 billion.
  What does that mean? That means that we bring in the Toyotas and the 
Volvos and the Mercedes, and what do we give in return? We give IOUs, 
promissory notes, investment assets, stocks and bonds. So every year we 
have to borrow $800 billion, and that number will be higher; it was a 
little less than $800 billion last year, it will be a little more than 
$800 billion this year. Now, when those Toyotas and Mercedes come over, 
they are never going back to Germany and Japan. But those promissory 
notes, those stock certificates, those bonds, those U.S. Government 
bonds, the private sector bonds, not only do we have to sell another 
$800 billion of them this year, but we have to fear that they are going 
to cash in the ones we gave them last year and the year before. The 
Mercedes are never going back to Germany, but the promissory notes we 
gave to Germany, they're coming back someday. And so those of us who 
are not on the front lines in terms of our districts have to worry 
about what our trade policy has meant.
  So why is it that the theory breaks down? Isn't trade good for 
everyone? And isn't the way to encourage trade and fair access and open 
markets to negotiate a reduction in tariffs around the world? Sounds 
great, doesn't it? If you think the whole world operates the way 
America operates. You see, if you are sitting in Beijing, and you want 
access to the American market, then you realize that the only way we in 
Congress, the only way we in the Federal Government affect the behavior 
of consumers and businesses is to pass written laws and regulations. 
And so, if you're in Beijing and you want access to America's markets, 
you negotiate to change America's laws and regulations. And once you 
do, then your goods can come flooding into the United States because 
individual businesses and individual consumers will buy them.
  And we, being basically ignorant of the world and in love with our 
theories, somehow picture China as just a poor, but larger, version of 
the United States, a place where their markets will be open if they 
only will change their written laws and regulations. And so we sign 
deals, and laws and regulations are changed. And when laws and 
regulations are changed, the United States, the effect is dramatic. And 
when laws and regulations are changed in an awful lot of countries, 
there is no effect at all, because if a society is not a society that 
follows the rule of law, then when we negotiate for a change in laws, 
we negotiate for an empty sack. And that is what happens, for example, 
with China.
  Imagine yourself a Chinese business person, and you get a call from a 
commissar, maybe a member of their Parliament, saying, Don't buy the 
American goods, buy the French goods, because the French are smart 
enough to demand fair trade; they are going to insist on balanced 
trade. If we want access to the French market, we've got to buy their 
stuff. So buy the French stuff. That will help our international 
position. Don't buy the American goods.
  You get that instruction orally. There is nothing America can do 
about it. Even with all of our wiretapping, it's highly unlikely that 
we will ever hear the conversation.
  And what happens? We don't sell the American goods. That is where the 
theory breaks down. A society that follows the rule of law, negotiating 
for a change in laws with a society that does not follow the rule of 
law. That is why it is foolish for us to enter into these trade deals.
  So, those who want to keep our trade policies pretty much the way 
they are are a little angry because the facts aren't on their side. 
Last year's trade deficit was bigger than the year before and bigger 
than the year before that, and this year's will be still higher. So 
they resort to ad hominem attacks on people like the gentleman from 
Illinois and myself. They describe us as simpletons, too dumb to 
understand their highfalutin theories, as Luddites, as xenophobes, and 
as people protecting the parochial interests of the heartland and 
Midwest.
  Well, I am certainly no proof of whether we are all simpletons or 
not; I can't offer you anything there. I'm sure we are going to hear 
from quite a number of quite eloquent and brilliant legislators who 
will give the lie to that argument. But I can give the lie to the 
argument that we are here protecting parochial interests of the 
American heartland, because, as the gentleman points out, I am from Los 
Angeles. Our port is doing real well. The goods come into the ports of 
Long Beach and Los Angeles in enormous quantities in those containers, 
and then the containers go back empty or filled with raw materials and 
scrap iron.
  And also, in addition to representing the city of Los Angeles and its 
port, the port isn't actually in my district, but my city runs it, I 
also represent half the city of Burbank. And if there are any 
industries that benefit from these trade agreements, there are those 
industries that don't really produce much of a physical product, but 
rely on getting paid for intellectual properties, our drug companies 
and our entertainment companies.
  And so, if I was here out of parochial interest, I might point to 
this or that different industry in my district or my city. And if any 
district should support these trade deals, it ought to be mine, but no 
district in America should support these trade deals because they are 
undermining the value of the dollar, they are undermining the power of 
America, and, ultimately, they are unsustainable.
  For how many years will the world loan us $600-, 700-, $800 billion a 
year? For how many years will the world send us the Toyotas and 
Mercedes and expect nothing but pieces of paper in return? The day of 
reckoning is coming. Perhaps the implosion of the U.S. dollar is 
coming. But things that cannot go on forever don't, and a trade deficit 
of $800 billion and growing is simply unsustainable.
  I have a lot more to say, but so many others do as well. I will yield 
back to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HARE. I thank my friend from California. And let me just say that 
those who would question your intelligence and your wisdom on this 
issue of trade do so at their own peril.
  Now, if I could, Mr. Speaker, introduce someone I have known for many 
years prior to coming to the House of Representatives, a person who has 
stood up for senior citizens, working people in her legislative 
district here in Congress, and someone who serves as my mentor and a 
great friend, someone who is never afraid to take on the tough battles, 
my friend I would like to introduce, Jan Schakowsky.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman whose leadership I appreciate 
so much on this very important issue. You have beautifully filled the 
footsteps, the shoes, of your predecessor, Congressman Lane Evans, who 
was also a champion for workers' rights, for the rights of ordinary 
people. And I appreciate that you are standing up for millions of 
American workers who have suffered from the trade policies that we have 
had.

                              {time}  2015

  I think it is important to note that the new class of Members who 
joined this Congress, far from being unsophisticated, understand that 
the trade policies that have been negotiated have harmed their 
constituents not just in the Rust Belt of the Midwest but around this 
country and brought those

[[Page 13365]]

issues to their constituents and, vice versa, listened to their 
constituents.
  Look, we all understand that this is a global world, that 
globalization is a reality, but now we need to control it and this 
Congress now has to reassert its authority over U.S. trade policy. We 
have an opportunity to do that now, to make sure that it works not only 
for the wealthiest multinational corporations but for workers and for 
our environment. So I appreciate very much the leadership that others 
have shown, particularly you, Mr. Hare, tonight with this special 
order.
  On May 10, 2007, the Bush administration officials and congressional 
leaders announced a new trade deal. While the agreement does show real 
progress in terms of moving the Bush administration in the direction of 
enforcing labor and environmental standards, the details of the 
negotiated package and their real-life impact are not clear and are 
troubling.
  So while I want to applaud the work of Chairman Rangel and others to 
make major improvements to the labor and environmental provisions, I 
have to say, frankly, that I have no confidence that the Bush 
administration, the same administration that has relentlessly attacked 
the rights of workers right here at home, let alone in other countries, 
would enforce those standards.
  We have yet to see the text of the proposed agreements, ``the deal,'' 
but a detailed description has been made available by the Ways and 
Means Committee and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and I 
am concerned that an outdated trade model that has decimated U.S. 
manufacturing remains intact.
  Over 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since NAFTA took 
effect. I think many of those who voted for NAFTA would agree that it 
has not worked out in favor of the United States and its workers, or 
Mexican workers either, for that matter. American wages since then have 
stagnated and our trade deficit has ballooned to a staggering $717 
billion. It is not a model we want to mimic. It is no wonder that no 
union or environmental group or small business has supported the deal, 
while all of big business has.
  There are those who suggest that those of us who have serious 
questions about the deal on trade are just mad about being left out of 
a press conference or, similarly, are wasting time so we delay the 
process. But the truth is there are substantive critical issues that 
affect these millions of Americans that we are speaking for tonight.
  The deal provides no assurances, for example, against a free trade 
agreement with Colombia, the country with the world's highest rate of 
labor union assassinations, or countries like Korea that continue to 
use every means to block American products, or the renewal of Fast 
Track trade authority.
  Instead of delivering on the public's demand for a new trade policy, 
the deal facilitates more Bush trade deals that contain the worst 
provisions of NAFTA and CAFTA. Even if the deal is 100 percent 
implemented, resulting trade pacts would extend the NAFTA-CAFTA model.
  The deal would ban U.S. efforts to prohibit offshoring jobs and to 
ban buy-American policies. How could Democrats, who have been fighting 
to expand and preserve such important U.S. policies, support a trade 
agreement that explicitly bans those very same policies?
  The deal does absolutely nothing to address the free trade agreement 
threats to Federal and State prevailing wage guarantees. Nothing was 
done.
  The deal allows the country of Peru to be sued if they dare to 
reverse its failed social security privatization plan. Seeing that 
Democrats actually beat back the Bush proposal for privatization of our 
Social Security plan, Peru's labor federation asked democratic trade 
leaders to fix this problem. Yet it is unaddressed in this deal.
  The deal fails to remove the outrageous NAFTA Chapter 11 foreign 
investor privileges that create incentives for U.S. firms to move 
offshore and expose our most basic environmental, health, zoning and 
other laws to attack in foreign tribunals. We won't as a sovereign 
state even be able to protect those kinds of important laws.
  The deal does nothing to address FTA- and NAFTA-style agricultural 
rules that will foreseeably result in widespread displacement of 
peasant farmers, increasing hunger, social unrest and desperate 
immigration. We talk about immigration and people crossing our border, 
and yet we have trade policies that impoverish farmers in Mexico, who 
quite naturally are going to do anything they can to protect their 
families and are willing to risk their lives in the desert to come to 
the United States. Trade is part and should be part of our immigration 
debate. This deal does absolutely nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, what I want to say is that this is a moment of 
opportunity where a Democratic majority in Congress can get a grip on 
these trade policies to set a new direction that raises all workers 
around the world, that respects our environment at such a critical 
moment in history, that really does good, not just for the rights of 
multinational corporations who show no loyalty to any country but to 
our workers and hard-working people around the world.
  We can do better, we should do better, and we have an obligation to 
our constituents to do better. That is all we are asking for. Let's go 
back to the drawing boards, not forever, not for an unlimited period of 
time, but let's go back to the drawing boards and create something that 
we all can be proud of in this country.
  Thank you so much, Mr. Hare, for your leadership.
  Mr. HARE. Thank you, Representative Schakowsky. Thank you for our 
leadership on the issue of trade.
  Before I introduce our next speaker, I want to say one thing our 
colleague talked about regarding the President being able to enforce 
labor standards. If you look just in this country, you don't have to go 
to Peru, you don't have to go to Panama or Korea, in the over 6 years 
he has been in office, we have only had one major standard by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration by this administration; 
and they were sued to have to get it. So I am not about to put my eggs 
in the basket of this administration to enforce any type of workers' 
rights in other countries.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I am honored to introduce someone who has 
taken the leadership role in our class, someone who ran on this issue 
of standing up for working people, someone who I look up to and I spent 
a great deal of time talking with about this issue of trade, who is not 
afraid to speak up on behalf of working people.
  It is wonderful to have colleagues like my friend, Betty Sutton, who 
understands. She comes from an area in Ohio where there has been a loss 
of jobs. She has been a labor law attorney. She knows what working 
people have had to go through.
  I am honored to be in her class, I am honored to call her my friend, 
and I am honored to introduce her this evening, Representative Betty 
Sutton.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Congressman Hare, your leadership on this issue is unparalleled; and 
on behalf of not just myself but all those whom I represent in the 
Thirteenth District of Ohio, we thank you so much.
  Thank you for organizing this Special Order hour. It is so important 
that we communicate the truth about what is going on and hopefully with 
the intent to influence it in a way that will make a difference in the 
lives of those we represent.
  Last November, the American people and the people back in the 
Thirteenth District of Ohio cast their vote to put an end to the flawed 
trade model that has had a devastating impact on our families, our 
businesses, our workers, our farmers and our communities and the tax 
base of our communities.
  Last week or a week or so ago, an announcement was made that the U.S. 
will require the inclusion of labor and environmental standards in the 
pending Peru and Panama free trade agreements. This is welcome news. 
But while it might appear encouraging that these deals seemingly 
provide for the

[[Page 13366]]

possibility of stronger labor and environmental standards, any 
enforceability of those standards, unfortunately, is dependent upon the 
Bush administration; and, given its abominable record, you can be 
certain that enforcement will not happen.
  Why do I say that? Well, for example, in 2000, Congress passed a free 
trade agreement with Jordan. That agreement had the support of many 
Members in this body who were committed to fair trade. Because it 
included those labor and environmental standards, they supported and 
voted for it. However, there has been no enforcement of those labor 
standards, even though documented violations have been extreme.
  So there is really little reason to believe that the same result 
would not prove true with the pending FTAs, even if they contain 
similar standards. The language on a written paper is not enough. It 
has to be enforced.
  My constituents and the people across this country voted for a much 
greater change in direction on trade than simply including labor and 
environmental standards which won't be enforced into our agreements. 
The American people cast their votes for a new majority in both the 
House and the Senate, hoping that we would help strengthen the 
shrinking middle-class, restore the American dream that has been 
offshored due to the harmful trade agreements and unfair trade 
practices that have persisted for more than a decade.
  The American people are counting on this new Congress in this moment 
to finally address the devastation of our failed trade policies and the 
soaring trade deficit by developing a new trade model that will no 
longer leave American businesses and workers at a disadvantage. They 
are counting on us to enact a trade model that will not reward 
companies who move overseas or encourage them to outsource jobs or our 
future. They are counting on us to develop a trade model that will put 
an enforceable end to illegal subsidies and currency manipulation. They 
are counting on us to develop a trade model that will provide 
incentives to help our businesses and workers and our communities 
thrive. They are counting on us to develop a trade model that requires 
reciprocity of market access and ensures greater safety of products 
produced elsewhere and consumed here.
  The American people are counting on the Democratic majority in this 
new Congress to provide a trade model that will truly allow for fair 
competition, because we know that, if given a fair playing field, we 
will excel in the global marketplace.
  This is not about being pro-trade or anti-trade. This is about the 
rules of trade and making sure that they are fair and enforceable. The 
American people want nothing more, and they deserve nothing less.
  I am committed to continuing the fight to deliver to the American 
people a truly new trade model that fixes this broken system that is 
fair and under which we will prosper.
  With respect to the pending Panama and Peru FTAs, which represent 
only a minute portion of trade with the U.S., I have yet to see them in 
full. However, it should be understood that Congress must reclaim its 
constitutional authority and responsibility over trade and not continue 
down the path of ceding our responsibility to the administration. It is 
our job to assure a vibrant and fair trade policy. We must focus our 
attention on that task before it is too late.
  My home State of Ohio has lost over 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 
2001. Sometimes I am dismissed because I come from a State that has 
been hit hard. People say, oh, well, she is just from a place where it 
has felt it, but we can just write that off, because it is not 
affecting that many people.
  Well, in the first instance, it is not okay to write off the people 
of Ohio. A lot of families are suffering, though, beyond my district's 
borders, and they need a new trade model now. The inclusion of labor 
standards and environmental standards in trade agreements means little 
if they won't be enforced.

                              {time}  2030

  And it means little if we don't fix the broken system.
  When I arrived here as a freshman member of this class I am so 
honored to be a part of, I listened to my freshmen colleagues, and I 
heard them talking about how these issues, this issue, this issue of 
trade was hurting the people they represented. They came from one side 
of the country to the other, from the top to the bottom, from Florida 
to New Hampshire, Iowa to Ohio to Pennsylvania. All across this country 
people are feeling the ill effects of our failed trade model. We must 
develop a new trade model that is enforceable and comprehensive, and we 
must do it immediately to keep the faith with the American people.
  Mr. HARE. Thank you, Ms. Sutton, and I hope you can stick around and 
we can have a little dialogue in a few minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to introduce someone who is 
one of the strongest advocates for veterans in this country. He serves 
as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee. He is a former mill worker who saw his company shut down. He 
is the cochair of the House Trade Working Group and probably the 
leading voice in this body to stand up for working men and women. I am 
honored to have him as my chairman and friend, and I yield to the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Hare, I, too, would like to thank you very much for 
taking a leadership role in the freshmen class along with Ms. Sutton 
from Ohio. The freshmen class has done an outstanding job talking about 
trade issues, and I appreciate your leadership.
  When I campaigned for office for my seat 5 years ago, the cornerstone 
of my campaign was fixing our broken trade policy. I firmly believe in 
order to address our trade imbalance, we have to change the model. It 
appears that the deal that was cut a few weeks ago by the 
administration and the leadership does not change that model. It is the 
same old NAFTA model with a couple of improvements. Americans don't 
want the same old model with a few Band-Aids. They want a fix. This 
election reaffirms that Americans are calling for an all-out new trade 
policy that puts our industry on a competitive playing field. Any deals 
between Capitol Hill and the Bush administration that fails to change 
this flawed model means that we are going to continue to see the U.S. 
trade deficit continue to rise, and it is going to destroy hundreds of 
thousands of our critical middle-class workers, our manufacturing base 
here in this country.
  In Maine, we lost over 23 percent of our manufacturing base alone. 
The reason I know that, because they qualified for trade adjustment 
assistance. So trade has affected Maine very deeply.
  This new deal, there are no unions, environmental groups, consumers, 
or small business groups support this deal, while all of the big 
businesses do. Some groups have remained neutral to find out what is 
actually in the deal. Those who have the most money to gain are 
praising the deal. Those who represent the working men and women of 
this country are not.
  I am not the only Member of Congress who firmly believes that our 
trade model needs to be changed. There are countless others, especially 
those who are leading the freshmen class, believe we need a new model. 
They ran and fought for fair trade. They simply cannot go home and tell 
their constituents it is the same old model with a few improvements.
  Adding new labor and environmental provisions is a step towards a new 
policy, but placing those provisions into a NAFTA-style pact is not 
going to solve the problem.
  We also have concerns about those provisions and whether or not they 
are enforceable. There are those in this town who say it is a good deal 
because there are loopholes in the labor provisions. But since our 
membership has not seen the actual text of these agreements, how are we 
to know whether or not they are enforceable? From what we understand, 
the deal fails to address many of the damaging elements of the NAFTA 
model.

[[Page 13367]]

  The deal does nothing to address the FTA's ban on anti-off-shoring or 
buy American policy. As you heard earlier, the deal does nothing to fix 
Peru's FTA terms that would allow Citibank or some other U.S. investors 
providing private retirement accounts to sue Peruvian taxpayers in Peru 
to reverse its failed social security privatization.
  Does this deal fail to protect our intellectual property rights? No 
one knows.
  But also when you look at trade, and trying to look at the 
globalization of what is going on around the world, there are other 
issues we have to address. The fact that there is a $327 billion 
disadvantage on U.S. goods because of the value-added tax, that has to 
be looked at. We have to look at the current trade deals that have been 
negotiated and see how we can bring the $800 billion worth of trade 
deficit back in line, because if we don't, we are heading on a 
collision course.
  We have the largest trade deficit in our history. We have the largest 
budgetary deficit in our history. The debt limit was increased over $9 
trillion with 45 percent owned by foreigners. We have to start 
addressing this issue. It is a serious issue, and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues from the freshmen class as well as my 
colleagues on the Republican side and the leadership to really put 
forward a trade model that will actually work for not only America, but 
for other countries as well.
  I yield back.
  Mr. HARE. I thank my colleague.
  I worked in a clothing factory. I cut lining for men's suits. I have 
three plants left in my district. They are hanging on by a thread. I 
can't support trade agreements that are going to outsource jobs. I have 
done town hall meetings since I got elected. I ran on this issue of 
standing up for ordinary people.
  I had a plant in my district, Maytag, with 1,600 workers. Two wage 
concessions those folks gave up. The company was given $9 million in 
State funds, and they bolted to Senora, Mexico. Thank you very much, 
Maytag.
  They left people like David Brevard, whose wife has cancer, with very 
little, if any, health care left. I cannot go back to my district and 
say to the Dave Brevards, I hope you understand that we have some 
things, if we let Bush handle some of, if we let the administration 
handle some of this, we are going to be just fine. Just hang on a 
little longer.
  I can't do that. I have drawn a line in the sand on this issue of 
trade. It is how I ran, and it is why I am here. I am not going to vote 
for a fast track bill that is going to take jobs away from this 
country. I'm not doing it.
  Some people would say, here is a protectionist. Yes, if the 
definition means I'm trying to protect American jobs, then I am. I want 
the record to state that I'm a card-carrying capitalist. I believe in 
trade. I just want this thing fair.
  I would ask the people and the Speaker tonight, look at the Korean 
trade agreement where 700,000 automobiles were shipped in here from 
Korea, and the United States was allowed to ship 2,500 to Korea. That 
isn't fair trade.
  I am not asking them to be equal, I am asking for the playing field 
to be level. As Congresswoman Sutton said, give us a chance to produce, 
and we will produce it. But when we don't even have the opportunity to 
do that, it is never going to work.
  I think we need to look at other things. I think we need to invest in 
something like the bill Ms. Schakowsky spoke about earlier and is going 
to be introducing. It is about getting companies to stay here, and they 
get tax credits for helping their employees with their health care and 
their pensions. Instead, we give tax breaks when they outsource it. I 
would like to ask both of my colleagues, and maybe I just don't get it. 
I want you to know that I am not angry that I wasn't invited to the 
press conference, I am angry because I know what we can do. This is why 
we have this majority. If we are going to keep this majority, we have 
to stand up for ordinary people.
  Before I turn this over, I want to end with a quote here. One of my 
political heroes is Hubert Humphrey, and he said in one of the last 
speeches he gave before he died to the Minnesota AFL-CIO, he said, ``I 
would rather live 10 years like a tiger than 100 years like a 
chicken.'' These trade agreements are going to put us back more than 
100 years. We are never going to be able to recoup these jobs we have 
lost. That is why I am here.
  I am not going to go back to my district, and I am not going to be 
lobbied to change my mind unless I am convinced that these trade 
agreements are in the best interest of our American workers, and that 
there are provisions built in to help keep jobs.
  While I applaud the efforts of the leadership to do some things, I 
want to make sure that the language is in here. I don't want to go back 
to Dave Brevard and say, if you can just hang on, we will work on the 
currency exchange. That is not going to help Mr. Brevard and the people 
in my district and in the State of Ohio.
  Let me say to my colleague, it doesn't matter if you are just from 
Ohio or just from Illinois, we have lost manufacturing jobs all across 
this country. I have yet to see, yet to see, a fast track deal that has 
been in the best interests of the working people of this country. So as 
long as I am a Member, and I know that is going to be at least another 
19 months, and hopefully a little longer, I am going to work very hard 
to make sure that American workers have somebody.
  And I have wonderful people that I am honored to have here this 
evening, and I would like to enter into a discussion of how are we 
going to keep manufacturers here.
  Does anybody see anything in this bill about how we keep our jobs?
  Mr. MICHAUD. I think that remains to be seen. I have been in 
negotiations before when I worked at Great Northern Paper Company. We 
put together ideas, but the devil is in the details.
  I think it is very clear that the American people want a new 
direction. They want us to look at the rules of trade. We have to give 
them that direction because we as Democrats, we are in the majority in 
both the House and the Senate. There is no excuses, no excuses. We have 
to give this country a new direction as it relates to trade. We have to 
look at the trade rules, and now is the time to do it. It is not let's 
pass a couple of them and see how it works out. We have to take a 
comprehensive view on what we want for a trade policy. The American 
people, they want that. We are here. They voted the Republicans out. 
They fired the Republicans.
  As we heard from our leadership, they haven't hired the Democrats. 
This is our time to show them that the Democrats can lead this country. 
We must lead this country, and what better way to show that we can by 
taking a global look at trade and trade policies and how it affects us 
here in the United States.
  Mr. HARE. I yield to my colleague from Ohio.
  Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Congressman Hare.
  Let me start out by saying I am so honored to be a Representative 
from Ohio. The people of my district and my great State are the salt of 
the Earth. All they want is a job where they can work and raise their 
families and give them an opportunity for a future that we all dream 
of.
  That is the kind of opportunity that my parents had. My dad worked in 
the boilermaker factory his whole life. Here I am, his daughter, 
standing in Congress. Every day that I am here, I am going to make sure 
that I am looking out for the people who have the same dream that 
probably your parents and my parents shared, and that is just for a 
good day for themselves and their family and a bright future based on 
those opportunities.
  Now, I, like you, Congressman Hare and Congressman Michaud, I believe 
trade can benefit American businesses and workers and be a tool to help 
developing countries looking to access our markets. But this that has 
been presented is not a new trade model that will get us there.
  Our window for creating a new trade model is closing because it is 
becoming

[[Page 13368]]

increasingly hard for our businesses to survive here, and that is not 
the American way, is it? That is not acceptable. I, with you, I know 
will continue to fight to change that.
  Mr. MICHAUD. That is a good point. It is not only about the workers 
and unions; the business community is very upset. Those small 
businesses, the United States Industry Council, which is an 
organization which represents small manufacturers all across the 
country, are very concerned about these trade deals, and we have to 
make sure that we look at it globally. That is why I think it is 
important for those of us who have seen it firsthand, not read about it 
in the paper, but actually seen it firsthand, that we are part of this 
discussion because it is very important.
  I have seen my fellow mill workers end up on the unemployment line. 
They ended up in food lines as well where food banks actually in Maine 
went dry because there are so many people applying or getting food at 
food banks because paper mill after paper mill had shut down because of 
trade.

                              {time}  2045

  Yes, we did get trade assistance, but that's not what they want. They 
want their jobs, and that's why it's very important that we do look at 
the rules of trade, changing the trade model so it's fair. It is, as 
Ms. Sutton mentioned, the American dream, and we have to bring that 
dream back once again.
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, let me just say this, too. These are the very 
people who fought our wars, defended this country. They just want a 
decent pension. They'd like some health care, put their kids through 
school, play by the rules, pay their taxes. They're not the fat cats. 
These are the thin cats we're talking about
  And for the life of me, I don't understand. As you said, we have both 
chambers, and I believe it's time that both of these chambers stand up 
because I'm afraid if we don't, we'll go back and our base, those folks 
who elected us here, are going to say what were you thinking.
  I want to just close with this. I know we just have a few minutes 
remaining here. I want to thank you all for coming this evening, and 
this is going to be a tough battle. We don't make any bones about it, 
Mr. Speaker, but look, nothing comes easy for hardworking people, and 
we're going to work very hard on this. I don't care where you come 
from, I don't care what State, but I think we have a moral obligation.
  I want to close. I did a commencement speech last night at a high 
school, and I ran into the grandfather of one of the kids that 
graduated. His father used to work with me in my factory that closed 
down because of trade, and he's out West now. And I got to thinking, 
what a shame we couldn't have the opportunity to see each other. He 
comes back periodically. He's a good, decent man.
  I'll close by saying this. This isn't the end on this trade issue. 
Mr. Speaker, this is only the beginning. We're going to fight, and 
we're going to win this battle.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join 
my colleagues in addressing the House and the American people regarding 
our trade policy and its effect on working families.
  I'd like to thank my colleague, Phil Hare, who organized this special 
order debate and who is an active member of the Congressional Labor and 
Working Families Caucus and the House Trade Working Group.
  On May 10, the Administration and Members of this House announced a 
``New Policy on Trade.''
  It's about time. Democrats have been calling for a new direction in 
trade for years. Finally, the Administration appears to be listening to 
these calls for improved provisions to protect workers, their families, 
and the environment. I applaud the baby steps the Administration has 
taken. But the Administration needs to take giant leaps to improve on 
its current, failing approach to trade.
  This new ``deal'' on trade covers changes to certain provisions of 
the Bush-negotiated Free Trade Agreements, FTAs, with Peru and Panama. 
Though we have seen outlines and summaries of this new ``deal'' on 
trade, we have not seen the final, legal text. Yet we have been asked 
to trust the Administration's promises and support this new ``deal.''
  To those of us in Congress who have been working to champion the 
rights of American working families and begin a new approach to trade, 
the Administration's promises sound awfully familiar.
  And when I say awful, I mean awful.
  Each time this Administration has presented one of its trade schemes 
to Congress, it has promised us that the agreement includes all sorts 
of so-called ``innovative'' worker protections. We heard this over and 
over again during the debate on the Central American Free Trade 
Agreement.
  But the fact is, no matter what label you use to describe them, the 
so-called labor protections in CAFTA were disappointingly weak. For 
example, under CAFTA, countries can down-grade their own labor laws, 
without facing any trade penalties or sanctions.
  Allowing our partners in free trade deals to erode their own labor 
standards is unfair to our workers here at home, who can't possibly 
compete with workers who are denied basic workplace rights, who are 
paid two dollars a day, or who face forced labor--as our own State 
Department reported was the case in Oman.
  CAFTA passed the House by the narrowest of margins at a time when it 
was Republican controlled. You would think that the Administration 
would have gotten the message that it needed to do better.
  You would think the Administration would have realized that from then 
on, it should include more of us in the process and work out a 
different type of trade deal.
  But unfortunately no one was listening. Since CAFTA, we've seen the 
same weak labor provisions in the Oman FTA.
  And now we are asked to have faith that the Administration has really 
turned over a new leaf? That enforceable labor and environmental 
standards will be included in the text of the Peru and Panama 
agreements?
  I have faith in many things, but not in these promises.
  This Administration has lost my faith. It has lied too many times, 
about too many things: that Iraq posed an imminent danger, that the 
mission in Iraq was accomplished, that at least nine U.S. attorneys 
were fired because they were incompetent, that the air around ground 
zero was safe to breathe, that we have not been experiencing any change 
in our climate.
  Perhaps more importantly, even if these agreements are the best 
written, fairest trade agreements possible, so long as they rely on 
this Administration to enforce the labor and environmental standards 
they contain, they are not worth the paper they are written on.
  This Administration has failed to protect workers here in the United 
States. The BP Texas City explosion, the Sago Mine Disaster, and the 9/
11 first responders and clean-up workers who have developed serious 
breathing ailments--these are just the most notorious examples of this 
Administration's relinquishment of its responsibilities to provide even 
the most basic protection to workers: The right to work in a safe 
environment.
  And that's not even mentioning the Administration's opposition to 
increasing the minimum wage, to protecting pensions and Social 
Security, and to ensuring that workers have the right to organize.
  The Bush trade deal would give private corporations the ability to 
take action on their own to protect their rights. It would not, 
however, extend that same power to workers, who would have to rely on 
the Bush Administration to do that for them.
  Trust this Administration to protect working American families? I 
don't think so. This new trade deal--like the previous bad deals--is a 
one-sided raw deal for workers.
  We're continually told that NAFTA-style free trade will create more 
wealth in all the countries involved. Yet NAFTA-style free trade has 
meant the loss of jobs as those jobs have been shipped overseas.
  Just as trickle-down economics proved to be a failure at lifting 
people out of poverty, the current free trade model has also proved to 
be a failure. Since NAFTA, the real income of working families has been 
on the decline or stagnant at best.
  The middle class is getting squeezed from all directions. Downward 
pressure on wages is being accompanied by higher health care costs, 
higher gas prices, and higher education costs.
  It's high time to develop a new trade policy that works for working 
families. American workers came out in droves in the last election, and 
they voted for a new majority. As part of the new majority, we owe it 
to them to stand with them for fair trade. To stand with them in 
creating a new America.
  This is possible.
  Fair trade is an option.
  If we stand united for working Americans, we can deliver a real new 
deal on trade, not warmed over hash masquerading as caviar. You know 
the old saying about putting lipstick

[[Page 13369]]

on a pig? Well, I smell bacon. I don't have to read the complete text 
of the deal to read between the lines.
  The bottom line is this: minor adjustments to NAFTA-style deals are 
not good enough.
  No more agreements based on the failed NAFTA model.
  No more ``Fast Track'' trade negotiation authority.
  We cannot give this Administration or future ones a blank check on 
trade deals that devastate our communities.
  Trade can benefit our economy and the economies of our trading 
partners. We can negotiate deals that create new markets, bringing new 
jobs and new prosperity. We can achieve significant new foreign market 
access and reduce our trade deficit.
  But to do so, we must embark on a new path. Not a slight detour from 
our current direction.
  I challenge Republicans and Democrats, employers and employees, all 
those who care about shared prosperity in this country, and not just 
the rich getting richer, to work together to embark on this entirely 
new journey to fair trade.

                          ____________________