Fast Track Trade

Floor Speech

FAST TRACK TRADE -- (House of Representatives - June 18, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Michaud, Congresswoman Sutton, Congressman Ryan, and also Congresswoman Sánchez, who left us, because you all have been carrying the banner of trade all night, fair trade.

And I think that before I jump into my remarks that I pulled together for tonight, I just want to say this: We are talking about trade, Mr. Speaker, within the context of two decades of flat wages for working people. When you look at real wages, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about flat real wages for working people. We are talking about a system of health care where we leave 47 million people out of it and so many other people carrying an increasing burden on their jobs just to be able to afford the health care that their job does provide. It is within this context that I want to talk about trade tonight within flat wages, within increasing health care costs, within the context of increasing and mounting consumer debt.

The average American, when you take their mortgage out of the equation, has about $13,000 worth of consumer debt to carry around. And that is talking about your credit cards and everything else. So we have got consumer debt, increasing health care costs, and flat wages. And now we are going to talk about trade, trade that has sapped our jobs.

If you look at NAFTA, NAFTA alone I want to talk about tonight. NAFTA was sold as a way to make sure that workers both in Mexico and in America would benefit. But has that really happened? Has that really happened?

What has really happened is the opposite. We have seen 3 million jobs lost, 30,000 in Minnesota alone. NAFTA, by permitting its heavily subsidized U.S. corn and other agricultural business products to compete with the small Mexican farmers, has driven the Mexican farmer off the land due to low price imports of U.S. corn and other agricultural products. Some 2 million Mexicans have been forced out of agriculture, and many of those that remain are living in desperate poverty. These people are among those who cross the border to feed their families.

NAFTA service sector rules allow big firms like Wal-Mart to enter the Mexican market and begin selling low price goods made by ultra-cheap labor in China to displace locally based shoe, toy, and candy firms. These estimated 28,000 small- and medium-sized Mexican businesses have been eliminated. Wages along the Mexican border have actually been driven down by about 25 percent since NAFTA. The Mexican border has actually been driven down since NAFTA, reported a Carnegie Endowment study. An oversupply of workers, combined with a crushing of union-organized drives as government policy, has resulted in sweatshop pay, running sweatshops along the border, where wages typically run 60 cents to $1 an hour.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned what is going on with Mexico because I think it is so important from the standpoint of the American worker, the American worker who is trying to put food on the table, hold jobs here in our country, it is critically important. We are talking about, as I said, flat wages, rising health care costs, increasing consumer debt. And it is so important to understand that this immigration debate we are having is heavily informed by what? Trade. Our trade policy is increasing the pain not only on American workers but on workers abroad. As we fight back and forth, to and fro, about what we should we do, more border security, higher walls, fences. We have all these raging debates around here around these issues. What we have literally done through this NAFTA trade policy and other trade policies like it is wiped out an economy in another country and not just pulled people here through higher wages but pushed them here by elimination of their economies in Mexico.

So, Mr. Speaker, I bring these points to the floor tonight so that we can have more informed debate so that when people say, hey, look, why are these folks making such a big deal about fair trade policy, it is important to know that the middle class is being pinched and squeezed. And so often even here in Congress, we are being told that the problem is some immigrant, when in reality the problem, I believe, is heavily subsidized agri-businesses and our trade policy, which allows us to dump cheap, low-cost corn into countries like Mexico, which wipes out their farm economy and drives workers there over here so that they can make a living.

Mr. Speaker, it is critically important that we understand these issues and we get these issues on the table as we debate them because it is hypocritical, in my opinion, to talk about spending $700 million, or however much we are going to spend on a fence, and not adjust our trade policies. We can't build a fence high enough if we keep on destroying the farm economy in Mexico and dumping cheap commodity prices there. We have to fix our trade policy. We have to fix a trade policy that benefits American workers and workers around the world too, Mr. Speaker.

So I didn't come here to say a whole lot more than that, Mr. Speaker. I want to get this issue of trade policy in the debate as we talk about immigration policy, and I want to talk about trade policy within the context of the squeeze the middle-class people are feeling every day.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. SUTTON. Absolutely.

Mr. ELLISON. Under the current model that we have, who is the entity responsible for enforcing trade provisions such as labor or environmental standards? Whose job is it to police those standards?

Ms. SUTTON. Well, the greatest level of enforcement actually begins and rests most directly with the administration.

Mr. ELLISON. So has the administration been an advocate, protector of the rights of workers in America, much less right around the world?

Ms. SUTTON. The gentleman asks a good question. No. No. The answer is no. And I think that that's an important point. And our colleague, Ms. Sánchez, made a very important point, too, about how this administration feels about human rights and workers' rights because she talked about the fact that they negotiated, this administration, an agreement with Colombia, where the murder of labor organizers and human rights violations are routine. And I think the fact that they are willing to enter into that agreement without being extremely diligent on correcting that tells us all we need to know about what this administration thinks about the need to enforce and deal with labor rights, labor standards and human rights. So I think that is very concerning.

If we deal with things, though, like currency manipulation and we deal with things like making sure that products that are produced elsewhere are safe for consumption here, because again, there are costs associated with safety. We have seen a lot of bad repercussions in recent days about products coming from outside of this country here. In fact, today, just today in USA Today was an article that dealt with lead in children's jewelry and how it was hurting our kids, and China refusing to agree to changing that practice.

I yield back to the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. MICHAUD. Actually, I would like to follow up, Mr. Ellison, if I might, because I have in front of me, actually, testimony of the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative, Ms. Moore, who attended our hearing in the Small Business Committee on June 13. And I will paraphrase. It says, ``Our work aims to increase exports by expanding market access for American goods, creating a level playing field.'' She also mentions, and it gets right to your point, ``In addition, we enforce agreements and resolve trade problems using a wide variety of tools.'' That is clearly not what's happening.

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICHAUD. Yes.

Mr. ELLISON. A wide variety of tools. I would be curious to know what some of those tools might be. Are we talking about tickling somebody with a feather, or what kind of tools are we talking about? Are we dragging somebody into a tribunal and getting sanctions on them, or are we just talking about something else?

Mr. MICHAUD. Well, if you are tickling them with a feather, it's probably a feather made in China.

And I can tell you, the Trade Working Group has worked very closely with a variety of different groups, environmental groups, religious organizations, labor, business organizations, the United States Business and Industry Council, associations, small manufacturing businesses here in this country. And the United States Business and Industry Council has told me directly that the United States Trade Representative has turned away businesses when they've brought complaints to the USTR primarily because the dollar amount wasn't enough. And I can tell you personally that, as you know, I worked at the Great Northern Paper Company for a number of years, and when the company I worked for, when I was talking to the public relations before they filed bankruptcy, they actually went to the Department of Commerce and talked about trade and what it's doing, and the response that they got: Yup, you've got a great argument, but go spend over a million dollars and come back to us later on. Well, we couldn't hold on. They filed bankruptcy. They closed the doors at the time, and it is devastating. So they are not enforcing those agreements, and we continue to see a huge disparity in our trade policy.

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICHAUD. Yes.

Mr. ELLISON. Well, if we already start out with what is a trade policy that is lax, a trade policy with a model that is not inclined toward saving American jobs, and then they won't even enforce the rules that they do have, what will happen if we vote for a trade policy for Peru and Panama that supposedly has these provisions in it, but they don't enforce them?

The fact is, I would like to ask the gentleman from Maine and the gentlelady from Ohio what they think about a trade model which would give labor organizations, for example, the right to charge an infraction of a labor standard and to bring a country into court for violating a labor standard? What if the sole power for enforcing the labor agreement was not in the hands of a trade representative that was favorably inclined to multinational trade but not so much for American workers, but actually in the hands of a labor organization; how might that play out?

Ms. SUTTON. Well, the gentleman asks a good question. He makes, actually, a great point, because the reality here is that we clearly don't have an enforceable system. First of all, the rules aren't good to start with. They're inadequate, and we have talked a lot about how they're inadequate. But the reality is, this Congress could do a myriad of things, actually, to shape the roles. And they shouldn't be left up to just sort of an, oh, maybe if it's a certain dollar amount, maybe if it affects something I care about. No, it really should be guided by the infraction itself, the infraction of the law, the infraction of the rule.

So, one way would be possibly to go down the path that you're talking about. And there are other avenues that we might pursue also. But the point is, we really need to fix it because you heard our esteemed colleague from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) talking about how we are investing in new technologies. And we all agree with that, we are all supporters of innovation. But when you have a company that is subsidizing and giving a 40 percent advantage from the start, all of the new technology, all of the education and workforce training in the world, all the increased productivity will never allow us to overcome that 40 percent head start.

So, again, the points are well taken. Rather than focusing on trade deals that are going to just take us down the same path to lost jobs, why don't we fix those things and then create a system in which trade can flourish? Because I believe in trade.

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. SUTTON. Absolutely.

Mr. ELLISON. Should our trade model be driven by promotion of American economic activity, including jobs? Or should it be driven by profit margins of huge multinational companies that really have no allegiance other than the profit margin each quarter?

Mr. MICHAUD. Well, I think a trade model definitely should look at jobs and putting us on a fair level playing field.

If you look at this Congress, particularly with the freshman class that we currently have who has been out there, very aggressively, talking about a new direction, we do need a new direction; we have to pause with all these trade deals that are currently going on. Even the former President, Bill Clinton, said we ought to pause on these trade deals to see what's happening.

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICHAUD. I would yield.

Mr. ELLISON. He ought to know.

Mr. MICHAUD. That's true. He's the one that brought us NAFTA. But these issues aren't Democratic issues or Republican issues. These are issues that are important to the United States, important to our long-term future, and we have to look at changing that model. And it can be done in a bipartisan manner. Congressman Tim Ryan, who was on the floor, is sponsoring legislation with a Republican Member of this body, Duncan Hunter, on the currency manipulation. I am glad to see that a Presidential candidate is out there talking about trade, along with Dennis Kucinich, who is also talking about trade. We have the value-added tax, which is another piece of legislation which has strong bipartisan support, once again, Congressman Duncan Hunter, Congressman Walter Jones, myself and Congressman Bill Pascrell.

So these issues are not Democratic issues or Republican issues. These issues are American issues. And we definitely have to be more aggressive. We have to change that trade model. And we have to sit down and pause, and sit down in a bipartisan manner, no backroom deals. We've seen what these backroom deals have done in the past, and they don't work. We have to work open so the public can see what is going on and the real effect that we currently are seeing with trade deals.

Ms. SUTTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICHAUD. Yes.

Ms. SUTTON. You know, and to my colleague, Mr. Ellison, your question, I think it bears sort of repeating. It is inexplicable, but the United States seems to be the only nation that does not find it acceptable to help our companies, to protect them, workers and communities, against unfair trade practices. And as a result, we are left at a disadvantage. All we are really asking for is that they have a fair shake. That's all we are asking for.

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentlelady yield? I agree. American workers are some of the best in the world, innovative, hard-working, no doubt about it, and given a fair chance, can compete with any workers or anyone around the world, but we just need a fair opportunity. So I think we need a new model, a new way of doing business that will protect American workers and also protect American small businesses, and other businesses that actually are in the business of helping America prosper and do well.

And before we wrap up, because I think we are probably getting close, I just want to say briefly that I hope that people who feel so passionately about immigration will incorporate into their arguments the impact of trade policy on immigration.

Mr. MICHAUD. You are absolutely right. And I would like to close by once again quoting former Attorney General Janet Reno, and I quote, ``NAFTA is our best hope for reducing illegal immigration in the long haul. If it fails, effective immigration control will become impossible.''

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Source