Trade Policy: A More Balanced Approach is Needed

Trade Policy: A More Balanced Approach is Needed

In today's world of outsourcing and increased foreign competition, it is more important than ever to examine closely the policies that will affect our economy. Our nation already scrutinizes policy from a business perspective, as it should — but we must also be far more mindful of the effects that globalization has on our nation's workers and the workers in the countries that we do business with.

Our nation's recent trade deals provide a good illustration of our need to promote a more balanced approach to trade. Several of these recent free trade agreements have contained significant flaws. One of the most recently considered was the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) which passed the House of Representatives this past summer by a narrow vote of 217-215. This was an extremely close vote for many reasons, but the principle concerns that many had with it were simple - it does not increase economic opportunity, it does not protect our shared environment, and it does not guarantee workers' rights.

But the vote was also close for another reason - Members of Congress had the advantage of examining how years of free trade deals have treated their home states' industries and workforce. In just the past few years in Maine alone, we've lost almost 25 percent of our manufacturing base and an estimated 24,000 jobs in the wake of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

While I agree that trade can benefit our economy, it must be conducted on a fair basis and on a level playing field. Unfortunately, recent trade deals have fallen short of that goal.

That is why we need to be asking a basic, fundamental question on each trade deal in the future: where is the economic opportunity for American industries and American workers?

That's exactly what so most U.S. workers want to know. NAFTA's own record speaks for itself with over one million U.S. manufacturing jobs lost, despite promises of strong economic gains. It also did nothing for Mexican workers as promised - they continue to earn just over one dollar a day while living in poverty.

That is why it is so important to get out in front of these "free trade" deals and start them on the right track. For example, the current trade agreement that is being negotiated with Peru started off well, with the president of Peru calling for worker protections in the deal. But in response, and to the surprise of many, U.S. trade officials and powerful members of the congressional leadership rejected the inclusion of internationally recognized worker protections.

This irresponsible rejection by our own government illustrates just how far we need to go to change direction in our approach to trade policy. Many were shocked by the move, especially given the Peruvian president's strong support for labor protections.

That is why I hand delivered a letter to the Embassy of Peru in Washington D.C. offering any and all assistance that I may provide to ensure that worker protections are a part of the pending agreement.

In the end, we will know that our trade policies are finally working when the world's poorest people can buy American products rather than just make them, and when we don't lose jobs each time the President's signs a new deal, as we have been for years.

While I look forward to a positive response from Peru, I will continue to do whatever I can in Congress to help add balance to policies that hold the future of American jobs.

http://michaud.house.gov/article.asp?id=262