[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7494-7495]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         FREE-TRADE AGREEMENTS

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of the 
Senator from Nebraska about these trade agreements. I take them at face 
value. I know he means well. I know he believes these trade agreements 
help the American people.
  I also know every time there is a major trade agreement in front of 
this Congress--the Presiding Officer's first one, I believe, and mine, 
was something called the North American Free Trade Agreement. They 
promised and promised, saying there would be all kinds of jobs and our 
trade surplus would grow; that it would be not just more jobs but 
better paying jobs. It did not quite work out that way with NAFTA.
  Then they did the same kind of promise and overpromise with PNTR, 
normal trade relations with China. In Mexico with NAFTA we had a trade 
surplus not too many years before NAFTA was signed, and it turned into 
a multibillion-dollar trade deficit.
  With China we had a small trade deficit. A deficit in trade means we 
buy more from that country than we sell to that country. President Bush 
said a $1 billion trade surplus or deficit turns into--he had different 
estimates, but between 13,000 and 19,000 jobs is what he used to say. 
Whether or not that is precise is a bit beside the point. The point is, 
if we are selling a lot more than we are buying, it is going to create 
jobs in our country. If we are buying a lot more than we are selling, 
we are going to lose manufacturing jobs.
  We went to literally hundreds of billions of dollars in trade deficit 
with China after PNTR. If we go into any store in the country we see 
the number of products made in China that used to be made in Vermont or 
Ohio or Michigan or Pennsylvania or Mississippi or wherever. So we know 
with these trade agreements, every time they come to the floor the 
promise is they are going to create jobs for Americans. They did it 
with NAFTA. They did it with PNTR with China. They did it with the 
Central American Free Trade Agreement. Now they are saying the same 
thing with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia, that it is going to 
create American jobs. Well, it doesn't ever. Maybe the theory is good. 
I don't think the theory is very good, but maybe it is, but it doesn't 
seem to work out that way.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to what these supporters of trade 
agreements say, to be sure; trust but verify. Ask the tough questions: 
Why is this going to create more jobs? We know the cost of the South 
Korea trade agreement is literally $7 billion. It is going to cost us a 
lot of money. They are not paying for it. These fiscal conservatives 
here don't want to take away the subsidies from the oil industry. They 
also don't want to pay for the trade agreement that is going to cost us 
$7 billion, plus the lost jobs that come about as a result.
  We know what these lost jobs mean to Mansfield, OH. We know what they 
mean to Sandusky and Chillicothe and Cleveland and Dayton, proud cities 
with a proud middle class that have seen these manufacturing jobs so 
often go straight to Mexico, go straight to China, go straight to 
countries all over the world after we sign these trade agreements or 
after we change these rules about trade.
  At a minimum, I have asked the President of the United States by 
letter, with 35 or so Senators who also signed this letter--and we will 
release it and send it to the President tomorrow--underscoring the 
President's commitment and the commitment of the U.S. Trade 
Representative, Ambassador Kirk, and the President's economic adviser, 
Gene Sperling, who said they will not send these free trade agreements 
to the Congress until the President has had an opportunity to sign 
trade adjustment assistance.
  Trade adjustment assistance simply says when you lose your job 
because of a trade agreement, you at least are eligible for assistance 
for job retraining. To me, the problem is the trade agreements and they 
are costing us jobs. But at a minimum, the great majority of Democratic 
Senators here understands, along with the President, that we don't pass 
these trade agreements without helping these workers who are going to 
lose their jobs.
  To me, it is a little bit counterintuitive: Why pass these trade 
agreements at all if we expect job loss to come from them. But the 
other side of the argument is that jobs will increase overall, although 
it doesn't seem to work that way. But everybody knows some people are 
going to lose jobs as a result of these trade agreements. That is a bit 
of circular thinking that I don't particularly buy. But at a minimum, 
because so often when these trade agreements pass, conservative 
Republican--sort of pro corporate interest--Senators, will say, Well, 
we want to take care of these workers and let's pass a trade agreement, 
and then they don't get around to taking care of the workers. That is 
why we have to do trade adjustment assistance first and to begin to 
enforce these trade rules.
  We saw in Ohio alone in the last 3 or 4 years, because we enforced 
some trade rules--because the President of the United States, President 
Obama, and the Commerce Department and the International Trade 
Commission stood up and enforced trade rules on China's gaming the 
system on tires, on oil country tubular steel, and less so, but on 
coded paper--we have seen jobs in the United States come back because 
we are leveling the playing field so they can't game the system as 
much.
  That is why it is important that we take care of workers before these 
trade agreements come to the Congress and then we will debate trade 
agreements. I hope we can defeat them--I think it is going to be hard--
and we make sure we do the enforcement of these trade rules that are 
now in existence that are now part of the law and get that in place and 
strengthen that before we pass these trade agreements.

[[Page 7495]]

  It is a pretty simple thing to do, but it is important. In one of the 
trade agreements the Senator from Nebraska mentioned, he was talking 
about the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I could speak on each of the 
three to the point of perhaps boring some of my colleagues. But on the 
one trade agreement that is particularly egregious with the country of 
Colombia, just last year, 50 trade unionists, 50 labor activists in 
Colombia were murdered--50 murders. They are saying, the supporters of 
these trade agreements say yes, but they are getting better in Colombia 
and fewer trade activists are getting murdered so it is getting better.
  Not that long ago, a labor rights lawyer was shot. He did not die. He 
survived, was injured badly. There is something a bit untoward about 
saying to this country, because you are getting better and fewer trade 
unionists are getting murdered, we ought to give them free trade, we 
ought to do a free trade agreement. I hope we will stand back. If we 
care about justice and human rights and about the values we embody of 
democracy and fair play, we shouldn't be passing a trade agreement with 
a country where the labor environment is such that these labor union 
activists who believe in collective bargaining and free association, 
collective bargaining--such as the consensus we have in this country 
around collective bargaining--at least we did until some radicals in 
Ohio and Wisconsin tried to write and pass legislation that unwinds 
some of that which has helped create a middle class. But if we believe 
in collective bargaining, if we believe in free association, if we 
believe in the right of the people to voluntarily organize and then 
bargain collectively, we shouldn't be passing a trade agreement with a 
country that has an environment where so many labor activists have been 
murdered.
  I wish to remind my colleagues again how important this trade 
adjustment assistance is before we pass these trade agreements.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

                          ____________________