[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 15669-15670]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           OPPOSITION TO H.R. 3078, H.R. 3079, AND H.R. 3080

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 14, 2011

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to all three trade 
agreements under consideration in the House this week. I believe these 
agreements will only exacerbate our unemployment crisis, undermine 
America's manufacturing sector, and allow the continued hemorrhage of 
our jobs to foreign countries.
  I am a proponent of trade, but any agreement that reduces barriers 
and removes avenues to redress unfair practices should preserve 
American jobs, ensure a level playing field, respect the rights of 
worker's and our environment, and provide significant economic 
benefits. These proposed agreements, individually and collectively, do 
not live up to those standards.
  Since 1977, the real median hourly wage has decreased $.53 for 
workers in this country. In manufacturing, it has decreased $1.40. In 
the same timeframe, the U.S. has lost approximately 7 million 
manufacturing jobs, over 250,000 in the state of Indiana alone. These 
are middle class jobs, and each lost job means lost wages, lost health 
care, and lost retirement benefits for a family. It is getting harder 
and harder for America's working class to make it, and that is a shame. 
With the unemployment rate at 9.1%, we must do everything possible to 
create new jobs, and protect every single American job that exists. 
Congress should have a singular focus of promoting American workers and 
creating American jobs.
  Instead, Congress is going to pass three trade agreements that will 
cause a loss of jobs; necessitating the passage of a TAA package to 
train those whose jobs are being outsourced. What a terrible and 
wrongheaded policy. Further, the TAA package that Congress is 
considering would pare back the eligibility requirements and funding 
levels for displaced workers that were established in 2009. Are 
American workers less vulnerable to trade than in 2009? I find it 
ludicrous that we would choose to reduce this assistance when long term 
unemployment continues to plague millions of American families.
  All three of these agreements are similar to NAFTA, and we know, all 
too well, the effects of NAFTA. In 1993, before the enactment of NAFTA, 
we had a small trade surplus of about $1.6 billion with Mexico. NAFTA 
was enacted in 1994 and by 1995 that surplus had turned into a deficit 
of almost $16 billion. By 2007, this deficit had grown to a staggering 
$75 billion. These policies have displaced millions of jobs, and we 
cannot afford to aggravate the problem with more misguided trade 
agreements. Further, the jobs that aren't displaced are diminished 
through depressed wages and benefits.
  According to the Economic Policy Institute, the South Korea agreement 
will expand the U.S. trade deficit by $13.5 billion and eliminate 
159,000 jobs within seven years. Proponents of this deal will cite 
estimates by the International Trade Commission indicating a small 
positive impact on our trade deficit and negligible domestic employment 
gains. However, I would point out that the ITC projected a $1 billion 
increase in the trade deficit and a negligible effect on employment 
before China's ascension to the World Trade Organization. The results 
turned out to be dramatically different. Between 2001 and 2008 our 
trade deficit with China increased by $185 billion and we have lost 
approximately 2.4 million jobs.
  The manufacturing supported by the United States' automobile supply 
chain is the backbone of our economy. The provisions of this agreement 
allow duty free imports of vehicles with up to sixty-five percent of 
the content coming from outside South Korea. I fear that countries that 
have circumvented our trade laws in the past will use this as a new 
opportunity to increase the presence of unfairly subsidized products in 
U.S. markets by going through South Korea. The resulting job losses are 
as inevitable as they are unacceptable.
  Finally, South Korea has a history of currency manipulation and 
erecting significant non-tariff import barriers. Are we foolish enough 
to believe they won't continue to aggressively protect their domestic 
industries at the expense of manufacturing jobs here in the U.S.?
  Specific to the Colombia agreement, the Economic Policy Institute 
estimates that this deal would eliminate 55,000 American jobs within 
seven years, while growing our trade deficit by $3.3 billion. 
Additionally, Colombia has a disturbing history of violence against 
labor unions. Nearly 2,680 unionists have been murdered there and only 
six percent of these crimes have been prosecuted. That is an appalling 
fact. The administration's Action Plan is a positive step, but it does 
not guarantee the basic rights of workers, nor their protection from 
retaliation. Further, the Action Plan is not part of the FTA, and is 
therefore subject to the discretion of the Executive Branch. I will not 
be satisfied until I see sustained long term progress for workers' 
rights in Colombia.
  These trade agreements will come at the expense of the middle class 
at the worst possible time. They will do away with at least 214,000 
American jobs and undermine key industries throughout our economy.
  Trade can have positive benefits for the U.S. economy, but it has to 
be done right, and it has to be done fairly. These agreements do not 
reflect the lessons we have learned. Again and again, we have seen 
countries acting aggressively to support and promote their domestic job 
creating industries while protecting

[[Page 15670]]

them from competition. Even when our companies have legal recourse, it 
is almost always too little too late, the damage has been done, and the 
jobs are gone. That is why I am concerned about the failure of these 
agreements to have robust mechanisms to ensure that the provisions are 
enforced.
  We should be using our time to pass legislation to rebuild America's 
economic infrastructure using American workers and goods and products 
made in the United States. I encourage my colleagues to oppose all 
three agreements.

                          ____________________