Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be the first speaker this evening in a special order devoted to the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA. Tonight we are going to talk about, since the agreement was signed and passed over the objections of many, many of us here in the House, passed in January 1994, what have been the repercussions in our country and what have been the repercussions in the other two nations on the continent, Canada and Mexico, that are participating in this agreement with us? This past week we saw our President travel to Mexico and to other nations of Latin America to promote additional nations being added to the NAFTA accord. And the question many of us have in the Congress today is, based on the results of the existing NAFTA, the flaws inherent in that agreement, why would anyone want to expand NAFTA rather than fixing the agreement we have now? Since NAFTA's passage, the United States has not exported more than it has imported from either Mexico or Canada. In fact, we have now racked up trade deficits annually with Mexico totaling $16 to $18 billion a year, and with Canada $20 billion a year. If each billion dollars translates into lost jobs in this country and we have racked up on average $40 billion in trade deficit every year since NAFTA's passage, how can the overall agreement be working to the advantage of our Nation and its workers? If we think about it, with our economy on the rebound and holding its own, without NAFTA we would be growing even faster. Because, in fact, NAFTA acts not as a net positive but as a net negative in terms of job creation and wealth creation in the United States of America. Tonight we want to talk a little bit about what is happening inside this agreement and the people across our country who are literally the casualties of NAFTA that are never talked about in the press, that are not heard from, but they number in the thousands in our country, and in Mexico they number in the millions. But if we look at who the President talked to last week in Mexico, the audiences were self-selected. He was cordoned off. People were bussed into events. They were told when to cheer, even told when to wave flags. But the real people of Mexico, the peasants who have been uprooted from their subsistence farms, the 28,000 businesses in that country that have gone belly up, the people whose wages have been cut by 70 percent, the President really did not hold state level meetings with them. Yet they live on this continent, too. And it is really tragic. But in a way I am beginning to see a pattern here, because the President and the supporters of NAFTA will not meet with the casualties in our country either. And tonight I want to tell my friends about one casualty, but there are thousands. In fact, the Federal Government's Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for dislocated workers has already certified over 125,000 Americans who have managed to even find that this program exists. There are thousands and thousands more across our country who do not even know if they lose their job because the production has moved to Mexico or Canada, we will try to help them. But I want to tell my colleagues about one of their stories, because it is very troubling to me that American citizens who have been hard- working, who have paid their taxes and then get hurt because of an action of their government, become nonentities. They become faceless people. They remind me of the Vietnam war, when people were being killed in the countryside and the body bags came home and they tried to hide them in the hangars at the various bases around our Nation until it began to be reported on the evening news. Well, my friends there are NAFTA casualties and nobody wants to talk about it. But we are going to talk about it tonight. One of the casualties is a woman that I have had the pleasure of only talking with on the telephone and corresponding with in the mail, and I want to use her as my example and I want to tell my colleagues her story because it is repeated from coast to coast. Her name is Wanda Napier. She is a resident of the State of Missouri. She lives in Marshfield, and I want to read into the Record a letter that she recently wrote me. She wrote me after she became frustrated, and I will read those letters tonight, too, in writing to the President of our country, to her Senators, to her representatives at the State level in Missouri, to her Governor, to the Department of Labor. And to see the answers that this woman got from the Government officials of her State and our Nation is truly an embarrassment. Here is what she writes me: Dear Marcie: I am writing concerning the closure of my apparel plant in Seymour, MO. I called you with my concerns in January on the North American Free-Trade Agreement and its cost of American jobs like mine. This trade agreement has made it easier and more profitable for companies such as the Lee Apparel Co. to take American jobs to other countries like Mexico. It is my understanding that representatives want to extend that agreement to cover other countries as well. But let me tell you my story. The Lee Apparel Co., a subsidiary of Vanity Fair Corp., was one of the two main employers in Seymour, MO. The employees were hard working people who had helped the Lee Co. through many hard times. In 1988, we accepted the Lee COMPETE plan which gave us an immediate cut in pay and tightened our incentive rates and made it harder to make a decent living. We took this cut to help make the jobs in Seymour more secure. But we found out 8 years later on September 26, 1996, that our hard work and willingness to help the Lee Co. would be thrown back into our faces by the Lee Co. sending our jobs to Mexico and Costa Rica. By sending our jobs to Mexico, the Vanity Fair Corp., through low wages and corporate greed, have not even allowed the Mexican people to make a living. With one stroke the Vanity Fair Corp., has weakened the American economy and depressed the Mexican people. I know that the people who worked in the Seymour, MO, plant deserve better. Many of the employees had devoted 5, 10, 20, even 25 or more years to the Lee Co., and this was their reward. We certainly were not making extremely high wages. The average for the last quarter we worked was only $7.84 per hour. A total of almost 2,000 American jobs have been lost just since December of 1995--she says 2,000 jobs just in this one company, in the Lee Apparel Co.--including the closing of the St. Joseph, MO, plant; Fayetteville, TN; Seymour, MO; Dalton, GA; Bayou La Batre, AL; and the downsizing of jobs in the Winston-Salem, NC, plant. The other plants now working are in danger of losing their jobs to foreign countries and live in constant threat of plant closure. When will it stop? I believe that the Government representatives of this country have allowed this to happen by passing the trade agreements such as NAFTA and GATT. Even though most will tell me that these trade agreements will be better in the long run, it does not help the 2,000 American workers who lost their jobs this year from the Lee Apparel Co., who need to support and feed their families. I believe that when we combine the unconcern of the Government representatives of this country with the greed and coldness of the American corporations such as the Vanity Fair Corp., we will continue to have lost jobs and an increase of American work given to foreign governments. The tax dollars generated in the city of Seymour, in Webster County, in the State of Missouri, and the United States, will be lost and services to those communities decreased due to lack of funds because of this closure. The same will be true in other communities that contained Lee apparel plants that were closed and the ones that will be closed in the future due to American work being sent out of the United States. In a news bulletin dated October 18, 1995, the Vanity Fair Corp. stated, ``Clearly, though, Vanity Fair remains committed to a strong domestic manufacturing capability that provides quick response to our retail partners, flexibility to changing product trends and support to the local communities in which we operate.'' She says, I guess somewhere along the line the Vanity Fair Corp. forgot the American community and the American people to whom they sell their product. Through the closing of these domestic plants, many American communities will suffer. Not only the employees of the closed Lee Apparel plants but also the businesses who rely on the money generated through wages spent. They will suffer too. That is some commitment on behalf of the Vanity Fair Corp. We were told that if your plant must be closed, this is the best way because of the provision for job training provided by the NAFTA agreement. But in the case of Missouri, this is not proving to be the case. The employees of Seymour are having to fight to get the training entitlement under this plan. Many are having to fight many battles with the Employment Security Office that approves this training to get the high-technology training that is supposed to lessen the chance of our future jobs being given to foreign governments. Not only have we lost our jobs, but we now must fight our own Government to get good training. I don't know, but doesn't it seem like there should be a better way of doing things? When will the American Government start requiring accountability for these trade agreements? When will the American people that they represent start requiring accountability for the bills passed by our Government? I hope you will read this letter to your fellow Representatives on the floor of Congress. Somewhere the system has gone against the American people and we need help. Thank you for your time and concern, I appreciate all you have contributed to the American worker. Now I want to put Wanda's letter in the Record: January 12, 1997. Congresswoman Marcie Kaptur, State of Ohio, Rayburn Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congresswoman Kaptur: I am writing concerning the closure of my apparel plant in Seymour, Missouri. I called your radio program on 1-12-97 with my concerns on the North American Free Trade Agreement and its cost of American jobs like mine. This Trade agreement has made it easier and more profitable for companies such as the Lee Apparel Company to take American jobs to other countries like Mexico. It is my understanding that representatives want to extend that agreement to cover other countries as well. This is my story: The Lee Apparel Company, a subsidiary of the Vanity Fair Corporation, was one of the two main employers in Seymour, Missouri. The employees were hard working people who had helped the Lee Company through many hard times. In 1988, we accepted the Lee COMPETE plan which gave us an immediate cut in pay and tightened our incentive rates and made it harder to make a decent living. We took this cut to help make the jobs in Seymour more secure. We found out on September 26, 1996 that our hard work and willingness to help the Lee Company would be thrown back into our faces by the Lee Company sending our jobs to Mexico and Costa Rica. By sending our jobs to Mexico, the Vanity Fair Corporation, through low wages and corporate greed have not even allowed the Mexican people to make a living. With one stroke, the Vanity Fair Corporation has weakened the American economy and depressed the Mexican people. I know that the people who worked in the Seymour, Missouri plant deserve better. Many of the employees had devoted 5, 10, 20, and even 25 or more years to the Lee Company and this was their reward. We certainly were not making extremely high wages. The average for the last quarter we worked was only $7.84 per hour. A total of almost 2000 American jobs have been lost just since December of 1995 in the Lee Apparel Company, including the closing of the St. Joseph, Missouri; Fayetteville, TN.; Seymour, Missouri; Dalton, GA.; Bayou La Batre, Al.; and the down-sizing of jobs in the Winston-Salem, N.C. plant. The other plants now working are in danger of losing their jobs to foreign countries and live in constant threat of plant closure. When will it stop? I believe that the government representatives of this country have allowed this to happen by passing the trade agreements such as NAFTA and GATT. Even though most will tell me that these trade agreements will be better in the long run, it does not help the 2000 American workers who lost their jobs this year from the Lee Apparel Company support and feed their families. I believe that when we combine the unconcern of the government representatives of this country with the greed and coldness of American corporations such as the Vanity Fair Corporation, we will continue to have lost jobs and an increase of American work given to foreign governments. The tax dollars generated in the city of Seymour, Webster County, the State of Missouri, and the United States will be lost and services to the communities decreased due to lack of funds because of this closure. The same will be true in the other communities that contained Lee Apparel plants that were closed and the ones that will be closed in the future due to American work being sent out of the United States. In a news bulletin dated October 18, 1995, the Vanity Fair Corporation stated, ``Clearly, though, VF remains committed to a strong domestic manufacturing capability that provides quick response to our retail partners, flexibility to changing product trends and support to the local communities in which we operate.'' I guess somewhere along the line, the VF Corporation forgot the American community and the American people to whom they sell their product. Through the closing of these domestic plants, many American communities will suffer. Not only the employees of the closed Lee Apparel plants, but also the businesses who rely on the money generated through wages spent will suffer. That is some commitment on the behalf of the Vanity Fair Corporation! We were told that if your plant must be closed, this is the best way because of the provision for job training provided by the NAFTA agreement. In the case of Missouri, this is not proving to be the case. The employees of Seymour are having to fight to get the training entitlement under this plan. Many are having to fight many battles with the Employment Security office that approves this training to get the high- tech training that is supposed to lessen the chance of our future jobs being given to foreign governments. Not only have we lost our jobs, but now we must fight our own government to get good training. I don't know, but doesn't it seem like there should be a better way of doing things? When will the American government start requiring accountability for these trade agreements? When will the American people that they represent start requiring accountability for the bills passed by our government? I hope you will read this letter to your fellow representatives on the floor. Somewhere the system has gone against the American people and we need help! Thank you for your time and concern. I appreciate all you have contributed to the American worker. Sincerely yours, Wanda J. Rapier. But what is very interesting is she sent a similar letter to the President of the United States. I am going to read his answer and put that in the Record this evening as well, because it is an answer that goes to the hundreds of thousands of people in our country who have lost their jobs to NAFTA as well as to the people in Mexico who are getting the short end of the stick. This is what he said to Wanda, the President of the United States, in a letter dated January of this year. Dear Wanda: Thank you for sharing your views about the North American Free Trade Agreement. America's continued prosperity depends, as never before, on our ability to tap growing markets around the world. NAFTA represents a great opportunity to create new, high- wage jobs here in America and to improve our ability to compete with Asia and Europe. And, as a result of this agreement, the Mexican and Canadian markets are beginning to open for the first time on a fair and equal basis to U.S. goods and services. More than 2 million American jobs are supported by exports to Canada and Mexico, and that number is growing in large part due to the NAFTA market-opening provisions. Congress passed NAFTA in a historic demonstration of bipartisan support, and our country has chosen to compete, not retreat, and to reassert our leadership in the global economy. I hope you will continue to stay involved as we work to move our country forward. Sincerely, Bill Clinton, President of the United States. The White House, Washington, January 14, 1997. Ms. Wanda J. Napier, Marshfield, MO. Dear Wanda: Thank you for sharing your views about the North American Free Trade Agreement. America's continued prosperity depends, as never before, on our ability to tap growing markets around the world. NAFTA represents a great opportunity to create new, high- wage jobs here in America and to improve our ability to compete with Asia and Europe. And, as a result of this agreement, the Mexican and Canadian markets are beginning to open for the first time on a fair and equal basis to U.S. goods and services. More than two million American jobs are supported by exports to Canada and Mexico, and that number is growing in large part due to the NAFTA market-opening provisions. Congress passed NAFTA in a historic demonstration of bipartisan support, and our country has chosen to compete-- not retreat--and to reassert our leadership in the global economy. I hope you will continue to stay involved as we work to move our country forward. Sincerely, Bill Clinton. Now, Wanda also wrote her Senators, and I am going to read the answer that she got, and we wonder why the American people stop voting, because nobody is listening. And here is what one of the Senators said, and I will place this in the Record: Dear Ms. Napier: Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. I am always happy to hear from Missourians and am interested to know your thoughts on this issue. Again, thank you for taking the time to inform me of your views. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, October 16, 1996. Ms. Wanda J. Napier, Route 4, Box 3810, Marshfield, MO Dear Ms. Napier: Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts on supporting the NAFTA Accountability Act. I am always happy to hear from Missourians and am interested to know your thoughts on this issue. Again, thank you for taking the time to inform me of your views. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Christopher S. Bond, U.S. Senator. Then she wrote a senator in her home State, and I will not read the entire letter here this evening, but I will read a portion of it and place the entire letter of reply in the Record. The gentleman, who is a senator in Jefferson City, says to Wanda: The question was posed as to how we were allowing this to happen. I do not know that anyone was allowing this to happen. Competition in the sewing industry has been very intense for several years, and now that we have a Mexican labor market so open to us, there is even greater pressure from competition. Missouri Senate, Jefferson City, October 16, 1996. Ms. Wanda Napier, Marshfield, MO. Dear Ms. Napier: I have received four letters which were identical so, therefore, I am taking the liberty of sending each of you the same letter. I am very sorry that the Lee Company found it necessary to close the Seymour plant and I know it will be a burden and hardship on 350 individuals as well as their families. The economic impact on the county is also obvious. The Department of Economic Development has assured me that they will do all they can do to see that a new employer is able to move into the Seymour community at the earliest date possible. The question was posed as to how we were allowing this to happen. I don't know that anyone was allowing this to happen. Competition in the sewing industry has been very intense for several years and now that we have a Mexican labor market so open to us there is even greater pressure from competition. I doubt that any one of us wants to live in a state or nation that would nationalize businesses (take the companies over). You may wish to correspond directly with Congressman Skelton and Senators Bond and Ashcroft. Their addresses are enclosed. Be assured of my interest and willingness to help in any way I can. I do believe that there will be job opportunities for the work force in the Seymour area. The availability of the plant facilities and trained work force has to be a real asset for the city of Seymour to offer a prospective company. I know it is a difficult time but by working together there will be a brighter day. Sincerely, John T. Russell. At least he was honest. At least he was honest, and what he is really saying is that here in the United States what we are doing is, we are in a race to the bottom. Lowering our standards continually, wages not rising, benefits being cut, whether it is in health, whether it is in retirement, workplace standards deteriorating because we do not have proper rules of engagement with nations that are not at our level and standard of living. Now, she also wrote the Secretary of Labor of the United States of America. I am going to place that response in the Record, as well, because essentially what they say to her is that the President and the Secretary of Labor have been raising the issue of corporate responsibility, and they are telling her that while change is inevitable, profit should not be the only factor considered when companies reorganize, merge, or downsize. And, in fact, the Secretary of Labor informs her that the President of the United States recently hosted the White House Conference on Corporate Citizenship, gee, would that not make her feel good, to continue the national discussion, discussion of how the corporate sector can ensure growth and profitability while not denying people the opportunity to make the most of their lives. They go on to say that more than 300 business leaders came to the White House, including a sizable number of those businesses that are leaders in one or more of the five critical aspects of corporate responsibility. And listen to what the White House thinks are the elements of corporate responsibility: family-friendly work practices, health care and retirement, safe and secure workplaces, education and training, and employer-employee partnerships. But where is jobs in America? Where is the issue of holding these corporations responsible for productive, high-wage jobs in the United States of America? Not even discussed. U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Washington, DC, October 28, 1996. Ms. Wanda Napier, Marshfield, MO. Dear Ms. Napier: Thank you for writing. The Secretary of Labor has asked me to respond on his behalf. The President and the Secretary are committed to doing all they can to assist workers, such as those at the Lee Company plants cited in your letters, who have lost or are in danger of losing their positions as a result of downsizing. The Administration is fighting to ensure that adequate funding is provided for training programs for dislocated workers, to help them land on their feet. The President and the Secretary are also raising the issue of corporate responsibility. While change is inevitable, profits should not be the only factor considered when companies reorganize, merge, or downsize. Corporate decisions and actions must accommodate the interests of employees as well. The President recently hosted the White House Conference on Corporate Citizenship to continue the national discussion of how the corporate sector can ensure growth and profitability while not denying people the opportunity to make the most of their lives. More than 300 business leaders attended the Conference, including a sizeable number of those businesses that are leaders in one or more of five critical aspects of corporate responsibility: family-friendly work practices, health care and retirement, safe and secure workplaces, education and training, and employer-employee partnerships. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns on these important economic issues with the Administration. Sincerely, Emil Parker, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy. It was interesting, she wrote her Governor. I will not read the answer from the Governor of Missouri, but basically it is a letter saying, I want to hear the concerns of citizens and be of assistance, but because your problem of losing your job falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, he is bucking the letter to the Department of Industrial Relations, which basically tells her that they have a listing of computerized building and site information that they make available to potential companies that want to locate in Missouri. Office of the Governor, State of Missouri, Jefferson City, November 26, 1996. Ms. Wanda Napier, Marshfield, MO. Dear Ms. Napier: Thank you for your letter. I want to hear the concerns of citizens and to be of assistance when possible. Because the matter addressed in your letter falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, I have forwarded your letter to the department director's office for review and response. You should receive a reply in the near future. If you do not, please let me know. Very truly yours, Mel Carnahan. I can tell my colleagues I spoke to Wanda on Sunday again. She has no job. Her fellow employees, if they have been able to scrape anything together in that part of the country, are earning half of what they used to earn, and they only earned about $7.85 an hour anyway. This is what one citizen has tried to do to get anybody to listen to her story. This is someone who could be completely down and out, but she refuses to back down because she wants an answer. So what is she doing? She has rewritten the President of the United States another letter. She said, ``Mr. President, I do not think you read my letter because the answer I got could not have been to the letter that was addressed to you.'' She wrote that letter a few months ago and she finally got an answer dated May 5, again from the White House, exactly the same letter, word for word, except for the date, that she received in the first place. I am going to place that letter in the Record as well at this point. The White House, Washington, May 5, 1997. Mrs. Wanda J. Napier, Marshfield, MO. Dear Wanda: Thank you for sharing your views about the North American Free Trade Agreement. America's continued prosperity depends, as never before, on our ability to tap growing markets around the world. NAFTA represents a great opportunity to create new, high- wage jobs here in America and to improve our ability to compete with Asia and Europe. And, as a result of this agreement, the Mexican and Canadian markets are beginning to open for the first time on a fair and equal basis to U.S. goods and services. More than two million American jobs are supported by exports to Canada and Mexico, and that number is growing in large part due to the NAFTA market-opening provisions. Congress passed NAFTA in a historic demonstration of bipartisan support, and our country has chosen to compete-- not retreat--and to reassert our leadership in the global economy. I hope you will continue to stay involved as we work to move our country forward. Sincerely, Bill Clinton. She has been e-mailing the White House. This is a woman who will not give up. I give her so much credit. She has been e-mailing the White House almost every other day. It is interesting when she writes the e- mail to explain her problem, whoever is down in that office in the e- mail office, here is what they answer her: Thank you for writing to President Clinton via electronic mail. Since June 19, 1993, the White House has received over 1 million e-mail messages from people across the country and around the world. We are excited about the progress of online communication as a tool to bring government and the people closer together. Your continued interest and participation are very important to that goal. Sincerely, Stephen Horn, Director, Presidential E-mail, the Office of Correspondence. If you were Wanda sitting out there in Missouri, how would you feel? I promised her that I am going to keep repeating her story until she gets a decent answer from the highest officeholder in this land who is elected, not appointed, and who is the promoter, the chief promoter of this agreement, along with the Speaker of this institution. It seems to me that Wanda and the 125,000 citizens of this country who have completely lost their jobs, in California, in Missouri, in Florida, in Michigan, in Tennessee, in Kentucky, in Alabama, in Texas due to NAFTA, do they not have a right to more consideration than this? Today in Ohio we had major news. In the Warren, OH area, 8,500 workers at a major General Motors plant have gone on strike. What are they striking about? Let me read from the AP wire service. They walked off the job at General Motors Corp. where they make electric wiring for 20 automakers worldwide. The walkout began at 12 o'clock today, the deadline set by their union representatives to reach a contract agreement on local pension and pay issues with Delphi-Packard systems. Talks broke off on the issue of job security. Specifically, the union's contention is that the company in recent years has shifted thousands of jobs to Mexico, which it has. It employs over 37,000 people in Mexico today. General Motors is the largest employer in the nation of Mexico after the Government of Mexico. The company wanted to reserve the right to move any work out of Ohio to Mexico at any time and that they did not have to meet with us about it, and that's when the bargaining committee said we can't live with that. The concern is for our members working here to be able to retire from here. Their story, their strike is connected to Wanda. It is over the same issue: fair treatment of workers across this continent. It is very interesting that when Mexico got in trouble last year and they had to be bailed out with the peso bailout, the investors on Wall Street and the investors on the Mexico City stock exchange had such important seats at the table that our own Government became the insurance company for Mexico and our taxpayer dollars, through the U.S. Treasury, were used to prop Mexico up. But when the American people lose their jobs to another nation, or they are threatened with losing their shirts, they have no seat at the table. There is no place under NAFTA where the workers of our country, and, for that matter, the workers of Mexico and the farmers of both nations, where they get a break, where they get anybody to pay attention to their story. Do my colleagues think the Secretary of the Treasury even would sit down with Wanda? I would love to see that. The President of the United States will not even answer her repeated letters and repeated e-mails. So here tonight we give voice to her, we give voice to the 8,500 General Motors workers in Warren, OH, who are standing firm. Their fight is a fight for every working family in America, because they are saying, we do not want our jobs outsourced. We do not want to have our wages reduced and our benefits cut and our health benefits plan gutted because we have to go in competition with a nation that will not even permit its own citizens to have their wages rise with rising productivity. Let me mention that this Warren-based company of General Motors has 17 manufacturing plants and an engineering center in the Warren- Youngstown region in northeast Ohio, and they make wiring harnesses. Half their production goes into GM vehicles. As with Wanda's company, Vanity Fair, which had branches all over the United States, Delphi Packard has factories in Alabama, Arizona, California, and Mississippi. The workers who are standing the ground in Ohio tonight are standing in firm solidarity with workers across this Nation and, in fact, across this continent. The striking workers have set up picket lines in Ohio. Production was stopped and no new talks were scheduled. One of the company spokesmen said today, ``One real key point for us is that Delphi Packard has worked long and hard to build a diverse customer base, a lot of non-GM customers. The difficulty of winning and growing non-GM business is so challenging that when you interrupt that supply line, the risk is you can damage that relationship.'' Union members have complained about retirement incentives for older workers and wages and benefits for newer employees who make up 55 percent of the most senior hourly workers. What they are really fighting about are standard of living questions, living wage questions, questions of whether their contract, given their work, deserves a fair day's pay. With whom are they competing? People who do not have the ability to raise their standard of living in a nation like Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place this story about what is happening in Ohio in the Record this evening at this point. 8,500 Delphi Workers Strike in Warren, Cite Mexico Threat Warren, OH (AP).--A key auto industry supplier was struck today by 8,500 hourly workers who walked off the job at a General Motors Corp. subsidiary that makes electric wiring for 20 automakers worldwide. The walkout began at 12:01 a.m., the deadline set by the International Union of Electronic Workers to reach a contract agreement on local pension and pay issues with Delphi Packard Electric Systems. Talks broke off over the issue of job security, specifically the union's contention that the company in recent years has shifted thousands of jobs to Mexico, Mike Kowach, Local 717 vice president, said today. ``The company wanted to reserve the right to move any work out of Ohio to Mexico at any time and that they did not have to meet with us about it, and that's when the bargaining committee said we can't live with that. ``The concern is for our members working here to be able to retire from here,'' Kowach said. A message seeking the company's response on that issue was not immediately returned. Most pay and benefit issues were settled earlier in a national agreement between GM and the union. The contract governing local issues expired in September. The Warren-based company has 17 manufacturing plants and an engineering center in the Warren-Youngstown region in northeast Ohio, and makes wiring harnesses. Half of its production goes into GM vehicles. Delphi Packard also has factories in Alabama, Arizona, California and Mississippi that are not involved in the strike. Both sides have been negotiating on local issues since mid- 1996. The striking workers set up picket lines, but other employees reported to their jobs, leading to some minor confrontations at the plant gates, according to police and the union. Production was stopped and no new talks were scheduled, Delphi Packard spokesman Jim Kobus said today. ``One real key point for us is that Delphi Packard has worked long and hard to build a diverse customer base, a lot of non-GM customers. The difficulty of winning and growing non-GM business is so challenging that when you interrupt that supply line, the risk is you can damage that relationship,'' Kobus said. He said it was too early to comment on when automakers might feel the effects of the walkout. Union members have complained about retirement incentives for older workers and wages and benefits for newer employees who make 55 percent of the most senior hourly workers. Mr. Speaker, I see that we have been joined by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], our very esteemed leader. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be able to tell the story of Wanda Napier this evening. I hope at some point we can bring her to Washington and let her tell her own story. I also appreciate being able to talk about the very brave workers in Ohio who run the risk of losing their jobs because they are standing firm at a time when they feel like pawns in a very powerful system of production globally. We just want them to know that we stand with them and our hearts are with them tonight.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, we just want to thank all of the membership for listening and for those who are tuned in on public broadcasting or C-SPAN, we want to thank the public for their interest in NAFTA, and more to come. {time} 2045

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of a single one, I would say to my colleague.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on one point? As the gentleman is talking, I am thinking about when NAFTA was discussed here, and we were told President Salinas had the greatest democratic heart, with a small D, beating in this century. Can you imagine a President of the United States being so disgraced that he then is a man without a country? That gentleman who headed Mexico now may be living in Ireland, for all we know, and his brother is in jail, and will be standing trial for drug-related charges, and we act, I mean the proponents act as if nothing happened.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, if I could just make a brief point, last night I was in Lima, OH, giving a speech to a large number of people. And afterwards three different citizens came up to me, two who were high school graduates, and one a mother of a gentleman who is 30 years old but is working in a temporary position. And that is the fastest work category in our country, fastest growing category, temporary work. She said: ``Marcy, my son is worried because in two weeks he loses his temporary job.'' It is not just low wages of these workers, it is the insecurity of not knowing whether there will be a job for them. The other two young men that were there were just seeking work, seeking to better themselves, having to work at jobs like Payless Shoes, which imports all of its shoes. And when you are a manager for a lot of those jobs, you qualify for food stamps. Is this the kind of America that we want to produce, one where when you work, and in Mexico, as we were told by the people down there, they work for hunger wages. These people in Lima, OH last night had several problems in trying to locate steady, well-paying jobs where they could secure a future for themselves and their family.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, if I might just reclaim a moment here before recognizing our wonderful colleague from Ohio? The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] has been a champion. I remember during the NAFTA debate he said this is our way of life, we are fighting for our way of life, this is who we are. We are not talking about something that is out there; it is about the struggle that we have had to create a middle class and allow people to sustain themselves and to experience the best that American life has to offer, and the country owes the gentleman a debt of gratitude, not just our region, but the whole country, and I thank the gentleman for sticking with us on this. I just wanted to mention that when you were saying that probably the biggest threat in these trade agreements when they are not well-balanced and people, many people, are not at the table, creates this downward pressure on our living standards, on our wages. This is an excellent poster that we have blown up here that came from a company in Illinois, and they told their workers that the workers' jobs might go south for more than just the winter, and it says on the bottom this was posted on the company bulletin board. This is an automotive plant. It says, ``There are Mexicans willing to do your job for $3 to $4 an hour. The free trade treaty allows this.'' And that is not just a subtle message to the work force, but it is that the downward pressure is heavy duty, and that is why workers at plants like the Delphi plant in Warren, OH, have said, all right, you want to draw a line in the sand, we are drawing the line for America. So I think this is proof in the pudding of exactly what you are talking about, and I wanted to thank the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] for coming down here this evening and being with us. It seems like we were here before, we were here before and we tried to tell this story. Now we have 3 years of experience to measure, and we intend to measure, and we have new Members like the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich] who has hit the ground running here, who comes from having been mayor of Cleveland and comes from a place that has experienced the industrial and agricultural transformation over the last several decades, has lots to say on this, and we welcome you this evening.

Ms. KAPTUR. I did not allude to it.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, that is some level of a sucking sound south, is it not?

Ms. KAPTUR. And by the way, they are moving jobs, if the gentleman will yield, out of Canton, OH, to Mexico as well.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Joseph Gembus of Rossford, OH who has taken from this life on Thursday, April 10, 1997 at the age of 85 years. A man of integrity, humility, and true grit, Joe was a glassworker who gave of his energies to his profession, his family, and his community. Always a staunch and dignified defender of working people, he served as his union local's financial secretary for 23 years, retiring in 1977. Upon his retirement and in recognition of his tireless efforts on their behalf, his brothers and sisters in the union named the United Glassworkers Local 9 hall the Joseph F. Gembus Hall. Throughout his tenure with the union, he also served on the Toledo AFL- CIO Executive Board and as Vice-President of the State of Ohio AFL-CIO Executive Board. He served on the Wood County Democratic Executive Committee, MidAm Bank Advisory Board, and the City of Rossford Charter Commission. Fiercely loyal to our Nation, Joe served in the U.S. Army during World War II, fighting in the China-Burma-India Theater. After his service, he joined the Rossford American Legion Post #533 and the Northwood VFW, where he was a life member. Never one to let his years slow him down, Joe was also a member of the Lady of Fatima Council of the Knights of Columbus, the Wood County Committee on Aging, and the Glassworkers Local 9 Cullet Club. Joe now joins with his wife Mary, but leaves to this earth his sister, Angela Gembus, sisters-in-law Betty Torda and Kate Eckhart, and many nieces and nephews. They, and we, will miss him and cherish his memory and contributions in making our community a finer place in which to live.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend the deepest sympathies of our community to the family and friends of Congressman Charles Arthur Hayes of Chicago, IL, who served in this body from September 1983 through December 1992. It was my distinct pleasure to know and work with this indefatigable man we called Charlie, including a visit to his central city Chicago district. During that tour, we walked from public housing development to public housing development, trying to envision a better and different future for the people--especially the children--living there. He knew every nook and cranny of his town. While we explored his neighborhoods, he talked about his early life, how upon graduation he had sought to work in Chicago but was denied because he was a man of color. He eventually joined the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and spent his life as a tireless and vocal advocate for the working people of our Nation--and for those who wish to work but are denied access. Through his life, he helped America move forward. As a staunch ally of Martin Luther King, Jr., and civil rights advocates, he changed the laws of our land to meet the Nation's promise that ``All people are created equal.'' We shall miss you, Charlie. I still look for you in the corridors of Congress, and still hear your voice. Very few citizens with a background like yours achieve election to this Chamber. You brought a set of experiences and a world view that need greater voice. Rest in peace, faithful servant. In your life, you made a difference.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. What I wanted to ask, though, is if the proposal in H.R. 400 that the gentleman is promoting is going to be useful, currently if publication is going to be such a good idea, early publication for small inventors and small business, why have they not published under the current law, which they can do if they wish, but they do not do it?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I am glad it is not goat skin, based on what has gone on here recently. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that the gentleman's explanation of how the patent system works today was just excellent.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, merely to point out that the reviewers of this, the Congressional Research Service, all of the other groups, fundamentally said that the base bill and our bill, that amendment, were equally good on the submarining issue. The substance of our amendment, which is the small business provision, my colleague will not talk about doing this debate. My colleague is trying to obfuscate the most important part of this amendment. Very clever, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, this is the Kaptur amendment, it is not the Rohrabacher amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentlewoman for her comments. Our intention is to close any loopholes that may exist on submarine patenting, even though that issue is a rather curious one to be raised by the committee, because in the last 20 years between 1971 and 1993, out of 2.3 million patent applications, only 627 have been classified as submarine patents; and at least a third of those were U.S. Government military secrets. So I find it interesting that the gentlewoman spent a great deal of her time talking about submarine patents. Our intention is to close any loopholes that might be there, and that is why the language is in our amendment. Let me also say that our concern is profoundly small inventors, small business, and university-based inventors. If the proposal in the base bill that early publication is so good for the small inventor and small business, why have those inventors and businesses not published before the grant of the patent up to now? By current law they have that right. So our intention is to protect the small inventor. Please help us do that.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman to please yield to me.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate this opportunity because I know that the folks that have worked on H.R. 400 have tried very hard, and frankly it is a work in progress, and as we work harder, it gets better all the time. I just wanted to summarize and say on this amendment we really have made a legitimate effort to protect the interests of the small inventor, the small business, the university inventors, the university community that is not satisfied with the base bill. We would ask for colleagues' consideration, and I would just end by saying that on the reexamination provisions of the base bill, recognize that this is going to cause a heavier burden on inventors to defend their patents because it gives the right to anyone in the world to submit a request to invalidate a U.S. patent at any time in its 17-year life. On this one, the big money will win as these patent fights go. Please support the Kaptur amendment. Please defend small business, the small inventor and the university community where so many of our new ideas come from.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that this patent bill has engendered substantial and necessary debate. That means that there are some unsolved problems inherent in the basic bill. One of the most important issues that we wish to bring up for amendment today has to do with the treatment of small business as opposed to big business in the base bill. Our amendment would exempt small business as defined by the Patent Office itself, 500 or fewer employees, based on the fee schedule that they use to distinguish between large and small business. It would exempt small business, universities, and individual independent inventors from having their patents published prior to when that patent is granted. This gets at one of the major objections of the opponents to the base bill. Our amendment also fixes the submarine problem, which I will discuss in a second, but basically it sets up a process that is more fair to get at the problem of when a patent has not risen out of the depths of the review process, and, third, it strikes the reexamination provisions. Because what we do not want to do is to open up more litigation for the small inventor that really does not have the deep pockets of some of those who very much want to receive some of the benefits in the parts of H.R. 400 that we do like. So our amendment has three parts to it: It exempts small business, universities, and individual independent inventors from having their patents published prior to grant. We do this because in the base bill the 18-month publication would reveal new ideas to the world technical community before that inventor had the patent and, frankly, that is an open invitation to stealing, it is an open invitation to copying, and it places a much greater burden on that inventor, especially when they are small, to protect their invention. Our amendment also is proposed because we want to offer the small inventor some leg to stand on, a fairer system. Our amendment is also offered because we want to make sure that foreign corporations and foreign governments do not have easier access to American technology as proposed by small inventors, and we want to protect from this undue litigation that seems to be burdening our system from one end to the other, and why complicate it more under the proposed bill? I might just point out that in the way the H.R. 400 is currently proposed, if you end up defending your patent, that will not happen in a court of law. There will not be a jury. There will not be a judge. You will be in the Patent Office, this new creature, we do not know what it is going to look like yet, and it is going to take a lot of money to defend yourself in this new system that is being set up and this new entity that is being set up. So our effort is to say, look, OK, for those people who want to play that game, let them do it, but for the small inventors and the small businesses and the university community that do not want to get engaged in that system, give them a level playing field to play on as well. I might mention that in 1995, the White House Conference on Small Business adopted a recommendation which specifically recommended to Congress that patent applications remain unpublished until the patent is granted. That was the White House Conference on Small Business, a large group of people that come in here from across the United States. This was an important enough issue that they put it on the agenda of the White House Conference on Small Business. They do have legitimate concerns. We are only asking those who have already started to repair H.R. 400 to please consider this proposal. We incorporate in the amendment as well important language to deal with the submarine patent issue. The amendment adopts the Rohrabacher language in the substitute that was debated last week, and our amendment lays out specific exceptions for when a patent can be published early, perhaps due to continuous delays, perhaps abandonment, perhaps pending more than 5 years, all of the concerns of the proponents.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.