[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3704-3708]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              FAST-TRACKING THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Tonko) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, we are going to use these 30 minutes to speak 
to fast track and a process on trade agreements that are developed. I 
believe it is so important for the American public to understand 
exactly what fast track is all about.


                             General Leave

  Mr. TONKO. I also ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on the subject of my Special 
Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TONKO. Tonight we are here to discuss, as I indicated, Trade 
Promotion Authority, most commonly known as fast track. Free trade 
agreements that would be accompanied by a fast-track process are a way 
to bring about devastating outcomes, if not done correctly, to the 
American economy and, most importantly, to the American worker.
  Of late, most notably, the free trade agreement of which there is 
much concern expressed is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP, 
which, by the way, would speak to a great number of nations which 
encompass about 40 percent of the international GDP. So it is no small 
compact here of which we speak.
  Fast track, as a concept, would constrain Congress' ability to 
conduct oversight, restrain oversight that Congress should provide so 
as to be the voice of the people who elect them, to place their given 
concerns in the discussions here in the House.
  It would delegate Congress' constitutional authority over trade 
policy in a way that would provide for no solid debate, no sharply 
restricting debate, and it would prohibit amendments. Basically, 
Congress would be limited to a simple up-or-down vote--thumbs up, 
thumbs down--on what could be a devastating outcome for the American 
economy and, most importantly, the American worker.
  These so-called free trade agreements have far-reaching impacts on 
American life. They may address dynamics like food safety or affordable 
medicine or financial regulations. So we cannot be reckless in our 
attempt, and we must make certain that we move forward deliberately to 
make certain that it is a good outcome for trade.
  We are not against trade. Free trade, as it has been described in the 
past and agreed to in the past, has hurt the economy, but we want fair 
trade.
  In exchange for fast-tracking bills, Congress is supposed to set 
these negotiating objectives. But let's face it: sadly, these 
objectives are nonbinding, so they could be rendered meaningless. And 
in the case of the TPP, which is nearly completed, setting them at this 
point is somewhat late in the process.
  We know also that the TPP is going to model itself after NAFTA, the 
North American Free Trade Agreement that dealt with Canada and Mexico, 
and also the Korean agreement. And the bottom line is, those deals have 
not been good for the American middle class, for working families.
  Certainly we would be giving up a golden opportunity to exercise our 
responsibilities here in Congress to make certain it is the best 
outcome for America.
  Promises of new jobs here in the U.S. are one of those promises for 
which we take great concern.
  Decreased trade deficits--it can be said that trade deficits have 
provided the greatest dent in the American economy. There are huge 
deficits that have staggered the efforts to grow American jobs and 
improve labor and environmental standards. These are promises that have 
failed: jobs to be produced, environmental standards and labor 
standards never really come to be. Even if they are written on paper 
with the enforcement requirements, they have not reached their 
potential. And certainly the job count is not what it should be.
  As we lost manufacturing jobs, millions of manufacturing jobs, one in 
every four manufacturing jobs, it was a devastating outcome. Three of 
every five American workers who lost those manufacturing jobs ended up 
with pay cuts, and one of three of those in the three-out-of-five 
category ended up with more than 20 percent of a paycheck reduction.
  This is not what we want in the order of progressive policies that 
will speak to a stronger economy. So I have grave concern for the fast-
track process.
  Those joining us tonight and those like the gentlewoman from New 
York, Representative Slaughter, who will share her thoughts in writing, 
which will be incorporated in the annals of these proceedings, for this 
Special Order, these are Members who are very concerned.
  And chief amongst them, the one who has led us in this effort to draw 
public awareness and political attention to this issue, is none other 
than Representative Rosa DeLauro, our colleague from Connecticut, who 
has done a solid job in bringing to everyone's awareness, attention, 
that the fast-track process is the first step in a process that could 
be devastating, as we authorize this Trans-Pacific Partnership, with 
the potential for job loss that we can ill afford, with the potential 
for abuse of children in the labor force, and beckoning us to bring 
about a situation that finds Vietnamese workers, for instance, working 
for 50 to 55 cents, 56 cents, perhaps, an hour. It is dumbing down, it 
is weakening the workforce across the world as we lose these American 
jobs.
  So Representative DeLauro, it is great to have you on the floor. It 
is great to have you join us in this Special Order. Please share with 
us your passion, your concern for what could happen here to the 
American worker.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Thank you so much. I want to thank my colleague from New 
York for leading this effort tonight and for being shoulder-to-shoulder 
with so many of us, both inside the House of Representatives and in the 
large, vast coalition that is outside of the House of Representatives 
that says ``no'' to fast track; we are not going to do this.
  So I applaud you and all of your efforts, and for standing up here on 
the floor most nights and talking about this issue so that the American 
public knows what is going on here because it is our responsibility to 
let them know.
  They are not following fast-track Trade Promotion Authority or the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership every single day the way we are. But it is 
our responsibility to know how, in fact, it is going to affect their 
lives.
  I would also say to you that I know you and I know so many of our 
other colleagues, we are not opposed to trade. We are not. We are in 
favor of fair trade. That is what we are about.
  I believe you are--and I am--a strong proponent of the Export-Import 
Bank. It helped American business to compete around the world for 70 
years. That is the kind of trade policy that we need. Reauthorize the 
Ex-Im Bank for another 7 years before its charter expires in June.
  What we must not do is to sign up to yet another bad free trade 
agreement, a deal that subjects American workers to competition that is 
neither free nor fair. And far too many of these trade agreements--
particularly, as you pointed out, in the last 20 years--have done 
nothing but deepen our trade deficit, lower our wages, and send 
American jobs overseas.
  An example: 3 years ago, we signed the U.S.-Korea free trade 
agreement with the bells and ruffles, the ruffle of drums and all of 
this effort that we are going to create jobs, increase wages. Yes, we 
are going to have more exports.

[[Page 3705]]



                              {time}  1900

  Well, you have got to know how to add and you have to know how to 
subtract. We have got exports, but look at the flow of imports which is 
hurting American workers.
  Since this trade agreement 3 years ago, our trade deficit with South 
Korea has gone up 71 percent; and given the administration and the way 
they calculate the job loss, using their metrics, we are talking about 
74,000 American jobs. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is built on that 
template of the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement, so it follows the same 
failed model, but it is on a much, much larger scale. It forces our 
manufacturing and technology base into unfair and unequal competition 
with other nations throughout the Asia Pacific region.
  There are 11 countries. So as you pointed out, it pits good-paying 
American jobs against Vietnamese workers who make 56 cents an hour. It 
asks American exporters to compete against Japanese producers who are 
propped up by currency manipulation, an abuse that has cost our economy 
almost 6 million jobs in 2013 alone.
  What happened? These countries--Japan, Singapore, and China--
devaluate their currency. Their goods become cheaper; ours are more 
expensive. It puts us at a serious disadvantage. As you know, my 
colleague, this trade agreement contains nothing that would disallow 
currency manipulation. We have been told by the administration that 
there will not be a currency chapter in this bill. So we are going to 
go down the road where these countries can continue to put our workers 
and our products at a disadvantage.
  You have a predictable pattern here: cheap, foreign products flow in, 
American jobs flow out, and our wages are on a downward spiral. The ill 
effects don't stop there. Most of the TPP's 29 chapters are not about 
trade at all. They are about rolling back laws in a way that plays 
directly into the hands of Big Business.
  The former director of the National Economic Council, Larry Summers, 
has highlighted corporate efforts to use the Trans-Pacific Partnership 
to ``change health and safety regulations, extend and strengthen patent 
protections, and deregulate financial services.'' We know that Larry 
Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury, National Economic Council, 
is no leftwing radical. That is the way they would like to portray 
those of us who oppose TPP. He is a thoughtful individual. That is the 
conclusion he comes to: it changes health and safety regulations, 
extends and strengthens patent protections, and deregulates financial 
services.
  A Nobel-Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, points out:

       The overall thrust of the intellectual property section of 
     the TPP is for less competition and higher drug prices.

  TPP can weaken our environmental protection. It opens the door to 
unsafe food. It could raise the cost of medicines. It can make it 
harder to defend against financial risks.
  The truth is proponents of the TPP know that their economic case has 
failed, and lately we have heard them try another tack. They tell us 
that TPP is going to help America counter the rise of Chinese power in 
the Asia Pacific region, and if we pass TPP, we will be able to set the 
rules. It is absurd. It really is absurd. Quite frankly, if you want to 
do something about China, do something about currency manipulation and 
what China has been doing as regular policy in buying up our reserves. 
Currency manipulation is their policy.
  Rules that encourage offshoring, gut our manufacturing and our 
technology base, and compromise the health and safety of our consumers 
are not American rules, but rules that favor big corporations at the 
expense of everyone else.
  You know as well as I do, Congressman Tonko, who is in the room and 
who is out of the room, who is in the negotiations and who is out of 
the negotiations. There is room at the table for a long list of 
multinational corporations: Walmart, Verizon, Halliburton, Dow, General 
Electric, Caterpillar, Hershey, Boeing, AdvaMed, DuPont, Intel, 
Lockheed Martin, and many others. But do you know who is not at the 
table? The American workers are not at the table who are going to be 
forced to pay the price in lost jobs and low wages. And there is no 
room for Members of Congress. We have been systematically frozen out of 
the process.
  For months, I pressed to get a copy of the negotiating draft, and I 
was told it was classified, but now I have seen pieces of the text. 
When I got into the room with a small part of the text, I discovered 
that it was not classified at all, that they said it was classified, 
but it is classified as a confidential document. It is not secret. It 
doesn't have a top-secret classification. They just don't want us to 
see it. They have placed every single restriction on our ability to 
read this agreement front to back, to ask questions, to know who said 
what, what country said what, and what the U.S. position is about all 
of this.
  They have been working at this for 4\1/2\ years, and now they have 
come because they know that fast track is in jeopardy. They know that 
this treaty is in jeopardy, and they say: Oh, we would like to have you 
read the text but it is classified, and you can't have any staff there 
except for someone who has a security clearance. They are holding us to 
a standard that the treaty does not impose.
  Let's stop playing the games. Jobs are at stake. Workers have a right 
to know what is being done in their name. We Representatives in 
Congress are their representatives. We have that responsibility to 
ensure that TPP either protects jobs or does not happen at all.
  Now, you talked about Trade Promotion Authority fast track. What is 
it? It is a rubber stamp. It says: Okay, trust us. You can't see the 
document. You can only see bits and pieces of it. It is classified, but 
give us fast track where there is no public scrutiny of the document, 
limited congressional debate, and no ability to amend the document at 
all. Just vote for us, and we will take care of your interests.
  President Reagan said trust, but verify. We are trying to verify. To 
give them that fast track authority, in my view, your view, this 
coalition's view, would be a big mistake. The potential consequences of 
the TPP are simply too great. We cannot surrender our constitutional 
authority, our ability to scrutinize this agreement and to amend it.
  Working Americans are in trouble today. Their paychecks have been 
stagnant or in decline for over 30 years. They are struggling to put 
food on the table and to heat their homes, let alone take a vacation or 
send their kids to college. Bad trade deals have played a leading role 
in creating this situation, bad public policy, and these trade 
agreements have been bad public policy.
  Good, stable manufacturing jobs used to be a bridge to the middle 
class until they were sent overseas to places where labor is cheap, 
only to be replaced with poorly paid service sector jobs. Workers who 
are laid off face an uphill battle to get rehired. If they find new 
jobs, three out of five are forced to work for lower wages. That is the 
reality of what happens when we sign these ill-considered free trade 
agreements.
  Why would we volunteer America and American workers for yet more 
punishment? Why would we do that? If we want to help the middle class, 
if we are for middle class economics, why would we do this? Why would 
we make it easier for Big Business to send their jobs overseas?
  The time has come. Enough is enough. No more low wages. No more lost 
jobs. No more bad trade deals. And that is where we are now. The 
Congress, the House of Representatives, has woken up. They are stirred 
up. They believe this is a bad deal. They haven't been allowed to 
investigate it, to read it, to read the bill as the public asked us to 
do with the Affordable Care Act those years ago, and then they want us 
to put our imprimatur on this effort. That is why there is so much 
consternation. That is why the Members of Congress, the Members of the 
House of Representatives, are saying no.
  I believe we will defeat fast track because the American public 
doesn't

[[Page 3706]]

want this treaty. The American public doesn't want to see their 
representatives unable to talk to them about it, and the Members of 
Congress are reasserting their responsibility and saying, unless we see 
it, unless we read it, unless we ask the questions, unless we know who 
the negotiating partners are, and unless we say yes, then our answer to 
the administration is no.
  I thank you for organizing this.
  Mr. TONKO. Well, Representative DeLauro, let me just state that the 
people of Connecticut are so fortunate to have you bring your voice to 
this Chamber to speak so effectively and so nobly for the workers of 
this country. People of this country beyond Connecticut prosper from 
your advocacy and your passion. We respect that. All people who are 
tuned into this discussion, those who have heard about it in other 
dialogue, need to call their Representatives: Where are you on fast 
track?
  Ms. DeLAURO. Bingo.
  Mr. TONKO. A great number of us Democrats in this House have come 
together saying we are for growing paychecks and we want to strengthen 
that paycheck. We have stood for increasing the minimum wage, but we 
talk about the median wage. Let's strengthen that. Let's make certain 
there is an opportunity to say: Here is how it could be better; here is 
what you are skipping. You are walking past the currency manipulation 
issue, which is one of the biggest concerns right now.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Amen.
  Mr. TONKO. As you pointed out, trade deficits have put the biggest 
dent into the American economy, and if we continue this, those who 
don't learn from history are bound to repeat it. And what we have here 
is an opportunity to learn from history that there have been all these 
negative outcomes. We have flattened if not gone south with the middle 
class income all because we have sent out of our country's borders 
these sound manufacturing jobs.
  You talked about all these impacts, and I know where your heart is on 
social and economic justice. What are we doing to people with the four 
TPP negotiating partners in Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico, and Peru? We are 
using forced labor or child labor in violation of international 
standards as reported by the United States Department of Labor in their 
report of List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor. We 
have situations where there are not unions allowed in Vietnam, a 
communist country. If it is allowed, they can't speak outside of these 
given standards. If they do, they are persecuted or jailed.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Or killed.
  Mr. TONKO. Or killed. We have got documentation of how many union 
activists have been murdered and how many of those issues have been 
resolved, how many of those reviews by the judicial process or whatever 
system in their country would prosecute. None of these--very few have 
been resolved.
  So it is not just the economic consequences. It is the social 
injustice that we can allow with these contracts.
  So I thank you. I know we have been joined by Ms. Kaptur.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Let me make one more point. Ms. Kaptur is here, and she 
has really been in the forefront of these debates and these issues for 
so many years, because the other side tries to portray us as, well, if 
you don't want this fast track authority, what would you want? Over the 
years, and particularly over the last several months, the last year and 
a half, Democratic Members of the House of Representatives have written 
to the administration, to the USTR, that is the U.S. Trade 
Representative, and we have made suggestions of how we could increase 
congressional input into this process by looking at who the negotiating 
partners are, what the objectives are, the enforcement of those 
objectives, and how we have a chance to certify that the objectives 
have been met and say yes, and then we move forward, the administration 
moves forward.
  We have been said no to over and over and over again. So, in fact, 
there has been no congressional input, though we have tried for a very, 
very long time to do that. The public needs to know that, because we 
just cannot have our head in the sand and just say no.
  Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. You use that technical term, I have used it, 
``currency manipulation,'' over and over. Let's just throw an example 
out there. It is a $6,000 edge for a competing automobile imported into 
this Nation against what is produced by our home-driven auto industry.

                              {time}  1915

  Well, that is going to upset the whole economy. It is going to impact 
consumers.
  So currency manipulation is given a $6,000 edge. It is like giving 
them a check saying: Put more conditions or more opportunities into the 
consumer's pocket to buy more features on a car.
  Of course, $6,000 is going to speak to their senses, so we need 
currency manipulation to provide for fair trade. As you indicated, we 
are all for trade but not this manipulation that has hurt the American 
working families.
  We have Representative Kaptur here, and I believe we have about 5 
minutes remaining.
  Representative Kaptur, I yield to you to share your thoughts because 
this is so important an issue.
  Again, I thank both of my colleagues for joining us here this evening 
and Representative Slaughter for sending in written comment that can be 
incorporated. Thank you, Representative DeLauro.
  Representative Kaptur, please share with us your thoughts.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you very much, Congressman Tonko. Thank you for 
your leadership and bringing us to the floor. As Congresswoman DeLauro 
completes her remarks, I just want to thank her for leading all of us 
in this great quest to move toward trade agreements that create jobs in 
our country and trade balances rather than trade deficits.
  I thought that if I could contribute anything to the conversation 
when this administration or any administration says, Well, what do you 
want, I can tell you what we don't want.
  We don't want agreements like this. This was the agreement with Korea 
where they said that the United States would be getting the ability to 
ship all these cars over to Korea.
  What actually happened was the reverse. We get a trickle in there; 
they get a deluge in here. Our trade deficit with Korea has gone up 84 
percent since the agreement was signed.
  We say to the administration: Give us a trade agreement that gives 
America not just a trade balance, which would mean we wouldn't lose any 
jobs, but a trade surplus, not a trade deficit, which costs us 5,000 
jobs for every billion dollars of trade deficit.
  We want balanced agreements; we want agreements in surplus, not in 
deficit. Every American knows what I am talking about. They have 
experienced it in their own communities.
  The other thing we want is we, as a Congress, want the ability, when 
an agreement deals with so many different aspects, to treat trade like 
a treaty, not an agreement that is sent up here and we are told, You 
can't amend it, you can't read it actually, everything is in secret, 
the administration is coming up here this week, and everything is in 
secret, but we don't get to see the whole agreement.
  I guess we look through a keyhole, and we can see 10 words or 
something. That isn't the way this country should conduct business. My 
own feeling is: Until we fix what is wrong with past agreements like 
the Korea agreement, why should we sign any more?
  I have many stories I am going to put in the Record tonight, 
Congressman Tonko, about people in Ohio who have lost their jobs due to 
these backward trade agreements that ship our jobs out, not our 
products.
  I want to thank you for helping to be here tonight, long after 
hours--you don't have to be here, but you are--trying to say to the 
American people this is really important. We understand what the 
American people are saying to us; we are trying to fight for them here 
in Washington.
  How fortunate are the people of New York who have sent you here and 
that you are nobly carrying their cause against very, very powerful 
forces on

[[Page 3707]]

the face of the globe that really don't care what happens to the people 
of the United States. They have a much narrower agenda. They really 
don't care about liberty when it comes right down to it.
  Thank you for holding to a higher standard and for trying to heal our 
country and to create jobs in America and opportunity in America and 
respect for liberty on the face of this Earth first because that is 
what America is supposed to be about.
  I don't want to take up the remaining time. I want to make sure you 
have opportunity to conclude.
  Mr. TONKO. You are fine, Representative Kaptur. I thank you for 
contributing, as you always do in such meaningful measure.
  I think you agree with me--I am certain you do--that Congress and the 
American workers deserve a meaningful role in these debates to make 
sure that our trade policy reflects our values as a country, as a 
people; and those include middle class prosperity, workers' rights, 
consumer safety, and environmental sustainability.
  When we have those rights guaranteed, when we have those ideals 
protected and advanced and enhanced, we are a great, great nation that 
comes out of trade negotiations even more powerful.
  We are a great nation; we need to stay great. We can't give away all 
of these golden opportunities simply by trade agreements that are 
unfair that provide an unlevel playing field for the American worker.
  It is about those values that we are meeting tonight, speaking 
tonight, advocating tonight, and encouraging that hope be brought to 
each and every worker and working family out there across this great 
Nation in a way that reflects a sound bit of dialogue on this House 
floor.
  Ms. KAPTUR. This is one of the most important elements of America's 
economic policy, and we are at a critical moment to change what was 
wrong in the past.
  We have an opportunity to fix these trade agreements and to reshape 
the way we handle trade with the world, beginning with those partners 
who share our value of liberty and then inviting in other nations of 
the world that want opportunity for their people and they want a chance 
for rising living standards, not to be turned into worse sweatshops 
with no environmental standards, with no worker standards, with no hope 
for a better way of life, just moving from one exploitative country to 
another exploitative country.
  I compliment you for standing up for the highest values of this 
Republic. I know the American people are going to win this fight 
because they have suffered far too long the job devastation from coast 
to coast. For the sake of workers in other places in the world, we are 
standing up for their opportunities and their rights as well.
  I am so privileged to join you this evening. Thank you for setting 
aside time for this Special Order tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to join my colleagues in showing why 
Members of Congress must have an opportunity to weigh in on provisions 
included in the free trade deals currently under negotiation.


                     Secrecy of Trade Negotiations

  Negotiations of the Trans Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic 
Trade and Investment Partnership have been notoriously secretive. 
Despite the calls from hundreds of Members of Congress to the US Trade 
Representative to protest the needless secrecy of TPP, we continue to 
be denied basic access to the deal. And those few who have been granted 
access have been restricted from sharing any part of the agreement with 
their constituents or expert staff.
  Tomorrow, the Administration will come to Capitol Hill to brief 
Members, but the conversation remains closed. Staffers without a 
security clearance are excluded and, again, disclosure of the terms of 
this deal to our constituents is prohibited under threat of federal 
prosecution. All this while foreign nations have the text of the 
provisions and know exactly what is included and what is excluded.
  The American people are being left in the dark with these 
negotiations. They are the very same people who have suffered the most 
as a result of past free trade deals negotiated in the same way: in 
secret.


                            Personal Stories

  Tonight, I want to share a few personal stories of people from my 
district, people whose lives were uprooted and thrown into turmoil as a 
result of past free trade deals. These deals lacked sufficient worker 
and labor protections and ushered in a wave of offshoring of American 
jobs.


                       Mr. Chuck Hamaide's Story

  I'll begin with Mr. Chuck Hamaide, a resident of Vermilion, Ohio. In 
December 2000, at 50 years old, Mr. Hamaide was laid off from his job 
at a software company in Cleveland. He found another job at a Columbus 
company, which had recently outsourced a first wave of production to 
Mexico. Three years later, it outsourced the remainder of its domestic 
production to China.
  Mr. Hamaide was lucky. He saw the writing on the wall and began the 
search for a new job before he was laid off. Many of his co-workers 
were not as lucky. Many who were late in their careers were laid off, 
losing their paychecks and their livelihoods. Many were in their 
fifties and faced the stigma of elder discrimination as they sought new 
employment.
  Many did not find jobs to replace the ones that were shipped 
overseas, where labor is cheap and conditions are appalling. This is 
the legacy of free trade deals in America. And there are many more 
stories like it.


                        Gloria's Personal Story

  Gloria, a bright 17 year old from Huron, Ohio, wrote to tell me her 
family's story, a story that is not unique. Gloria's father worked for 
General Motor, then Delphi, and Kyklos Bearing International for 41 
years. He clocked 12 hour shifts, seven days a week. Despite years of 
dedication, his pay was recently cut and the factory where he works is 
under threat of closure.
  His company may be able to offer him a replacement job--but it will 
be at another factory, 100 miles away from his home and his family. 
Whether or not Gloria's father takes the job, he and his family will 
suffer.
  Gloria shared with me her concern about her own future: she will soon 
go to college and fears she will not be able to find a job once she 
graduates. She worries that she will not be able to support herself and 
that she will have to live on welfare, despite ample motivation and 
capability on her part. This is the legacy of free trade deals in 
America.


             Middle America Hurt the Hardest by Free Trade

  These fears are the repercussions emanating throughout Middle 
America. A new generation of younger Americans, many of whom witnessed 
their parents being downsized and outsourced, is now entering the 
workforce with little hope of stability and opportunity. The American 
dream is looks more and more like a pipe dream to them.
  These free trade deals lead to outsourced jobs and fewer 
opportunities for young people like Gloria who are about to enter the 
labor market. And they contribute to lower wages for hardworking people 
like Gloria's father, who dedicated their lives to their jobs and the 
industries in which they worked.
  From the little we know from past trade deals and the shroud of 
secrecy being kept around the TPP and TTIP, we have to assume that 
these deals will be equally devastating for American workers like Chuck 
and future workers like Gloria.
  The fact that these deals are so veiled in secrecy is unsettling, but 
the real economic danger comes in the form of trade promotion 
authority. This so-called ``fast track'' authority would compel 
Congress to vote on these massive trade deals within just a few weeks 
of being allowed to read them, without any opportunity to push for 
important changes including improvements to environmental and labor 
standards. I can imagine reasons why trade supporters would want to 
fast track a secret trade deal, but none of them involve the benevolent 
treatment of American workers or increasing the market value of their 
labor.


                           KORUS Anniversary

  This week the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement passed its third year 
in effect. I would like to remind everyone that it was sold to us on a 
promise of ``more exports, more jobs.'' In truth, we have seen exactly 
the opposite since the deal went into effect. U.S. exports to Korea 
have fallen and imports have surged.
  Our overall trade deficit with Korea is 84 percent higher than it was 
the year before the agreement was signed, an increase of 12.7 billion 
dollars. A large portion of that increase comes from manufacturing 
imports, especially passenger vehicles.
  Yes, auto exports to Korea are up an estimated 23,000 cars from a 
pre-KORUS number of around 15,000. The bad news is that the U.S. 
imported 450,000 more passenger cars over the same period. This works 
out to another 5.7 billion dollars or 36 percent alone for our auto 
trade deficit with Korea. That means

[[Page 3708]]

more than lost profits for U.S. companies; it also means lost wages and 
lost jobs for thousands of U.S. workers.
  Let me also remind everyone that the Korean trade agreement is the 
model for the much larger Trans Pacific Partnership that remains 
shrouded in secrecy.
  Gloria put it perfectly in her letter: ``America has seemingly given 
up.'' Is this what we want our young people to think? That we no longer 
care, that we are no longer committed to offering them a better future?
  Lost jobs and downward pressure on wages are the legacy of trade in 
America, and we owe it to these young people to do better. We owe it to 
them to protect the American economy, to protect American jobs and to 
protect the middle class. We have a chance to show them that we haven't 
given up, and that we've learned from past mistakes, like NAFTA and 
KORUS. We can do this by putting an end to unfair free trade deals, and 
negotiating fair trade deals that work for everyone, including American 
workers.
  We owe it to the next generation to build a new legacy for American 
trade. There are mutual gains to be had if the free people of the world 
can work together, maintaining real labor and environmental standards 
and showing the world a better, and freer, way to live and work. We 
have seen glimpses of what this can look like, but for decades, when 
push comes to shove, our leaders have decided to balk and cave, letting 
false promises and voodoo economics drive the selling out of American 
workers time and again. We need to demand more of this administration 
and the massive global trade deals it strives to enact. We need real 
transparency and real standards or we need to say no more to terrible 
trade!
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you so much, Representative Kaptur.
  Let's move forward with socioeconomic environmental justice, where we 
can grow this Nation and job opportunities and undo those trade 
deficits.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank Mr. Tonko for the time 
to discuss the troubling issue of ``fast track'' trade authority.
  President Obama and some of our Republican colleagues want to use 
this process to ensure that the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership, or 
TPP, trade deal is passed quickly and without input from Congress. 
Under this authority, we would have to vote on this far-reaching trade 
agreement that has been negotiated in secret without the ability to 
offer amendments or engage in meaningful debate.
  Considering the TPP under fast track authority is simply another 
symptom of this closed Congress, where we have been deprived of our 
authority and responsibility to protect our constituents. And if past 
trade deals are any indication, American workers and manufacturers need 
our help now more than ever before. For as long as the United States 
has been signing free trade agreements, we have watched helplessly as 
quality, middle class jobs have flowed overseas. Quite frankly, over my 
career, I have never seen a trade agreement that benefited the American 
worker or the American manufacturer.
  I come from a district that has been devastated by short-sighted 
trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, and recent agreements with Korea 
and Colombia. It is estimated that since NAFTA went into effect, the 
United States has lost 5 million manufacturing jobs. In the Rochester 
area alone, we have only half the manufacturing jobs that we did then.
  Our economy simply cannot afford another NAFTA-style, job-killing 
trade agreement, which is exactly what the Trans-Pacific Partnership 
is.
  I have great confidence in the American worker and American 
businesses to compete and succeed in the global marketplace if given a 
fair and level playing field. For generations, our country has shown 
that hard work and ingenuity are the engines of progress and economic 
prosperity. Innovations that shaped the 21st century economy were 
conceived and produced here in the United States, many in Rochester I 
might add.
  In return for allowing other countries to benefit from our hard work 
and innovation, America was rewarded with a strong middle class.
  But other countries have taken advantage of us, and we have to stand 
strong against them. American workers should not be forced to compete 
against workers in countries like Vietnam where wages are as low as 50 
cents per hour.
  We need to level the economic playing field and stop jobs from being 
shipped overseas. We're not going to do that by enacting fast track and 
allowing more poorly conceived trade agreements like the TPP to 
decimate our economy.
  Congress cannot afford to give this administration--or any future 
one--the benefit of the doubt by passing fast track authority. By now, 
it should be clear that a closed legislative process isn't good for 
Congress or the American people. I firmly oppose fast track authority 
and I urge my colleagues to stand up for our constituents before it's 
too late.

                          ____________________