Fast Track Trade

Floor Speech

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

Ms. SUTTON. Thank you so much, Mr. Michaud, and Ms. SÁNCHEZ. Both of you, your leadership is a shining example for all of us. As you point out, this is a moment of supreme importance when it comes to the trade policy of this country.

Last November, the American people cast their votes for new leaders with the hope that we would replace our broken trade system with one that will truly allow for fair competition, because we know that if given a fair playing field, we will excel in the global marketplace.

The first step, as both of you so rightfully point out, has to be that Congress must stop ceding its constitutional authority and responsibility over trade to the President. The lack of oversight and accountability, giving the President what's been called Fast Track authority, the damage that Fast Track authority has wrought on the United States trade policy has led to devastating consequences, some of which you have already heard about throughout this country. It certainly has had a devastating impact on the area that I represent. We have lost over 200,000 manufacturing jobs in Ohio since 2000.

That means that people's futures have been seriously put at risk. There are kids out there today who won't be able to go to college because of the jobs that their parents lost due to Fast Track, and the bad trade deals that resulted under Fast Track. There are people out there who won't have health care for their families because of the bad policy that has resulted under Fast Track.

For them and for every American who has been hurt by the Bush administration's harmful trade policies, we must, we must let Fast Track expire permanently at the end of this month. Now, we all know that the United States' Constitution gives responsibility for trade to the Congress, and there was a reason for that.

Our forefathers knew that they needed to keep that issue and control over that issue at a level that is closely connected to the people who are being represented. That's why Congress had that authority.

Unfortunately, with Fast Track, the problem is the administration negotiates the deals, signs them, determines all the terms, and then weighs it before Congress, and you have to vote ``yes'' or ``no.'' You have no input on what the constraints are. You have no say or ability to fix what is wrong with the deals as they come through. That is just not a path we should continue down.

As has been mentioned, Fast Track has enabled the passage of trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA, and of course the WTO, the World Trade Organization, all of that has accelerated as our leader here has pointed out, it's all accelerated a trade in jobs crisis. It's marked by an $800 billion trade deficit, and more and more people are feeling this across the country.

In fact, I actually have a letter here that was sent to our leaders in both the House and the Senate from organizations, organizations like American Medical Students Association, The Change to Win Coalition, Communication Workers of America, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Earth, hundreds, hundreds of organizations, national, State organizations; a wide variety of people, church organizations, all who oppose us extending Fast Track authority to the administration, because they know that the resulting trade deals are devastating to our communities, our businesses, our workers, our farmers and our country.

So it is with honor that I stand beside my two esteemed colleagues here tonight to talk a little bit about this with them and with all of you at home who care, I know, deeply about us changing the direction on our trade policy.

The good news is there are things that we could be doing, and that we should be doing to stop leaving our companies and our workers at a disadvantage.

And so I'm looking forward to exploring that with you both tonight.

And at this point, Mr. Michaud, I yield back.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. Michaud, again, your leadership is inspiring.

And, Mr. Ellison, thank you for being down here. You have been a tremendous leader on these issues, and your points about immigration and the complexity and the links between these subjects is well taken and important to recognize because, as you point out, Mr. Michaud, with the numbers about the value-added tax, the VAT tax, there is nothing free about that. When they call it ``free trade,'' you kind of think you are going to get something good back in return, and it just hasn't been working.

And the reality is when you read the quote by the former Attorney General, at that point the issue was theoretical. It was hypothetical. We didn't know for a fact actually what would happen. We thought. We had our ideas. We had our suspicions. But it is no longer theoretical. We know how this trade model has failed, and it doesn't make sense for us to continue down that same path.

You know, we had some talk here this evening about some of the trade deals that are still pending under the Fast Track authority that the administration still maintains. And a couple of those were mentioned in passing, including the pending deals with Peru and Panama, and of course Colombia and Korea. And recently, the administration and some congressional leaders actually announced that the labor and environmental standards were going to be included in the Peru and Panama agreements. However, right after that announcement, reports indicated that those standards may be put into side letters, where we've seen them go and not be enforced. And we also heard those who represent the multinational interests who are benefitting under our current broken trade policy boast that the standards will not be enforceable. Those are concerning developments.

And I guess it is also important to note that, even if the standards are ultimately in the core of the FTAs, experience tells us that they will not be enforced. In 2000, Congress passed the Free Trade Agreement with Jordan, and it had those labor and environmental standards in it. As a result, it received broad support. Actually, some of those who believe in fair trade and are committed to it voted for it because of those standards. But you know, alas, despite documented violation upon documented violation, those standards have not been enforced.

So getting back to sort of the points that you have all been making, rather than continuing to pass more free trade agreements that won't be enforced and will result in the consequences we've seen under the broken trade system, which means more lost jobs, a bigger trade deficit, more of the negative consequences, not just in this country, but it's out of whack all over; rather than doing that, it makes sense for us to focus on things like that of Mr. Ryan's bill that will help to fix our broken system.

You know, Congress should focus on replacing policies that reward businesses for outsourcing jobs with incentives and should focus on sensible tax policies and would help businesses and workers make it in America.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source