U.S. Trade Policy

Floor Speech

U.S. TRADE POLICY -- (House of Representatives - June 11, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, I want to thank my colleagues Mr. Michaud and Ms. SÁNCHEZ and Mr. Hare. You have been leaders in this fight for a new U.S. trade policy for many years to benefit and to help our working men and women, our businesses, and our communities, and we appreciate your efforts. On behalf of the people of the 13th District of Ohio, I appreciate your efforts working to craft a new trade model that won't leave our businesses and our workers at a disadvantage.

And, frankly, last November in the election, the American people cast votes that reflect their desire to put an end to the flawed trade model that has had a devastating impact on our families and businesses and workers and farmers and communities.

And yet we recently heard about a new trade deal, and it has been mentioned here today, revolving around the Peru and Panama Free Trade Agreement. And that recent deal between some congressional leaders and the Bush administration seemingly provides that labor and environmental standards will be added to those two free trade agreements. However, shortly after that announcement was made, reports indicated that those standards might be put into side agreements or side letters, and those statements were made by those who represent the multinational interests who have been benefiting under our current failed trade policies. And they have boasted also about how those standards would not be enforced. And based on this administration's abominable record on enforcing free trade agreements, I think we can all agree that that is what will happen under this administration.

It has been mentioned here today that there was a free trade agreement with Jordan that was entered into by this country, and there were many who support fair trade, like Mr. Michaud and Ms. SÁNCHEZ and Mr. Hare and me. Of those who support fair trade, some of them saw fit actually to support that free trade agreement with Jordan because it had environmental and labor standards in the agreement.

Well, what we saw is that despite those standards, under this administration, despite records indicating documented cases of child sweatshop labor, among other things, there was no enforcement of the standards. So the fact that they are going to be on paper but not enforced really isn't what I believe the American people had in mind when they voted, and I certainly don't think it is all that we need to be doing in Congress to fix our broken trade system.

Now, in an effort to shut down the debate, oftentimes those who are benefiting under the current trade system characterize those of us who are seeking to fix it as protectionists. They insinuate that we are really against trade and don't understand the realities of globalization. Well, that is incorrect. This isn't about being pro-trade or antitrade. It is about the rules of trade and ensuring that they are fair and enforceable. We need a trade model that truly allows fair competition because we know that if provided that opportunity, we will excel in the global marketplace. And that is the trade model that we are fighting for. We are fighting for a trade model that will not reward companies for moving overseas or outsourcing jobs and will put an enforceable end to illegal foreign subsidies and currency manipulation. We are fighting for a policy that will provide incentives to help our businesses, workers, and communities thrive that will require reciprocity of market access and ensure products produced elsewhere are safe for consumption here.

Now, we agree that we must invest in new technology, innovation, and workforce development, and we have to invest in research and development. But it is not an either/or proposition. Unless we also develop a new trade model, our workers, businesses, and communities will continue to be unfairly undercut, and we see that reflected in our soaring trade deficit.

So why is it that the Bush administration and many Members of Congress find it acceptable that other nations engage in unfair trade practices at the expense of those who toil here, whether it is a lack of meaningful and enforceable labor and environmental standards or currency manipulation, tariff and nontariff barriers, value-added taxes, and we could go on and on about the tactics that are used and keep our businesses and workers at a disadvantage? But for some reason it seems that there are those in Washington here who seem to believe that we can continue our current trade policies and that other countries will change. But why would they? It is working for them. Just look at our trade deficit.

Well, those politicians who think this is a good system that we have going should visit Ohio's 13th District. Come and see the places that I have the honor to represent because a lot of people there are hurting from the failed trade policies that have been thrust upon them. Ohio has lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. Communities have been hurt and families struggle. Futures have been destroyed. There are kids out there who will not go to college. There are families out there where health care needs are not being met. And it is directly related to our failed trade policies. And unless we make meaningful changes by enacting a truly new trade model, we can't reverse this downward spiral.

So while it is encouraging that these two free trade agreements seemingly provide for the possibility of stronger labor and environmental standards, any enforceability, as I said, relies on the Bush administration, and it appears that it may be a paper victory to have those standards in the agreement even if they find their way into the core part of the agreement, which we are not certain that we will actually see.

One more thing or, I guess, it is the overarching thing: The Constitution of the United States rests responsibility for trade with the United States Congress. I think that we head down a slippery slope as we continue to cede responsibility to the President for trade. It should be understood, as was reflected in our recent elections, that Congress must reclaim its constitutional authority and responsibility and stop ceding its responsibility to the President. It is our job to ensure a vibrant and fair trade policy, and we have to focus our attention on this task before it is too late.

So the inclusion of labor and environmental standards on paper, okay. But, truly, the American people expect more. Our needs are much greater than that. And we must develop a new trade model that is enforceable and comprehensive, not just on paper but in reality. And we have to do it immediately to keep the faith with the American people.

With that, I yield back to the gentleman from Maine.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SUTTON. The gentlewoman's points are well taken.

I am glad you brought up the issue of how far-reaching the effects of our failed trade policies go. I mean, the reality is that when we lose these jobs due to our broken trade system and the unfair trade policies that others pursue and we don't stop, what happens is our communities sometimes crumble because when those employers pull out and the jobs are gone, the tax base is gone. And then the city can't deliver services, our schools can't fund our education for our children. So it has these multiple ill effects that are set in motion.

You also raise a really important point, and I think it's worth emphasizing. Oftentimes, Congressman Michaud, when we have these discussions about trade, they like to say this is about business versus workers. And as you rightly point out, of course, the U.S. Business and Industry Council has been saying much of the same things that we've been saying here on the floor because they know that the window is closing, that there are many who want to literally ``make it in America,'' but because of the policies that we have in place, it is becoming all but impossible for them to do that. Once that window closes, I don't know how we get it back. So, we cannot allow that to happen.

On that point, I think that while we are sort of focused on this new deal about the Peru and Panama Free Trade Agreements, which of course represent a very, very small, minute portion of trade with this country, we are focused on that and the fact that there will be, at least on paper, some environmental and labor standards. Of course we are all very much in support of environmental and labor standards. But when we know that they are not going to be enforced and they are then just going to result in two more trade agreements that will result in more jobs being lost in this country, it doesn't really seem like the right place for us to be focusing when we have such a short window of time.

Again, you point out some very important pieces of legislation that are pending here in the House, including the Currency Manipulation bill that Congressman Ryan and Congressman Hunter have sponsored and I think we are probably cosponsors on. That is an important place that we could be focusing on that could make an important difference in the very near future if we could enact.

The value-added tax, a similar situation. We could be focusing, as Congress is responsible for trade, on these matters that would really make a difference in the way trade plays out for the people who we represent in this country. I think that that would be a much better focus than to continue to cede responsibility to this administration.

It is a critical time. I know that the people back in Ohio are counting on us. And Ohio is going to be in

the center of the storm, if past history is any indication, in these upcoming presidential elections. And this is an issue, I can assure you, that will be front and center in the minds of those people in Ohio as it was last year when they cast their vote.

With that, I will yield back to my good friend from Maine.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source