Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my fellow Great Lakes member that I appreciate his coming down here tonight at this late hour and representing the interests of the Great Lakes. We need stronger voices, and you, obviously, are one of those. I am so glad that you are calling the Corps to task to pay attention to our region and to all of the improvements that are necessary to deal with the most vital body of freshwater on the face of the Earth and, certainly, in our country. I want to thank you very much, Congressman Duffy, for your proposal. I think that the Corps will hear you. Many of us want to work with you and to do what we can to help not just this generation but those that follow in having access to this globally critical, precious freshwater resource that we call the Great Lakes. Thank you so very much for coming down this evening. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to begin by thanking Chairman Simpson for his bipartisan approach in preparing this bill. We have a good committee, and we work together. I want to thank also our entire staff, Donna Shahbaz and Taunja Berquam, the Republican and Democratic Clerks, as well as the rest of the Committee staff: Matt Anderson, Angie Giancarlo, Loraine Heckenberg, and Perry Yates; and in the personal offices, Sarah Cannon and Ryan Steyer. Their countless long hours, late nights, and thoughtful insight are so critical to help us prepare this legislation. Thirty-seven years ago, President Jimmy Carter, after the first Arab oil embargo, as gasoline prices exploded and the U.S. fell into deep, deep recession, championed the creation of a U.S. Department of Energy. He equated the struggle for America's energy independence as the moral equivalent of war, and he was right. He set a goal to steer the United States toward energy independence by 1985. Today, America still struggles to meet that challenge set out nearly four decades ago: reducing our imported energy dependence, curbing our voracious appetite for foreign oil, and growing a diverse domestic energy portfolio that invests in a self-reliant America and the job creation here at home that goes with it. Containing our ballooning consumption topped President Carter's agenda. But while he successfully reduced consumption during his Presidency, his successors lost focus. Demand for gasoline increased by 40 percent in the 25 years after he left office, a troubling reality, as every economic recession since World War II has come on the heels of a sharp spike in gasoline prices. I have a chart here that so dramatically shows every time gasoline went over $4 a gallon, America, in the late seventies, in the early nineties, and then of course in 2008, fell into deep, deep recession. Our work is important. Under the current administration, partnerships between the Department of Energy labs and automotive companies have finally helped level out demand for gasoline with increasing fuel efficiency. President Carter also envisioned a new energy horizon for our Nation, including renewable energy and conservation. Solar electric capacity currently operating in our country is enough to power more than 3.5 million homes, on average. Today, 90 percent of homes in our country are insulated. These are important achievements, milestones for our country, and America must push onward. On the critical issue of reducing foreign oil dependence, President Carter's initiative strikingly reduced imports below the target of 6 million barrels a day, a cut of nearly a third, but imports, again, after his Presidency, went on the rise in subsequent decades. Vast energy imports continue to represent the single largest component of our overall trade deficit. I brought a chart down here tonight that shows America has been in the depths of deficit in trade, but the portion of it that deals with petroleum is its most significant percentage, and it has been for a very long time. That translates into millions and millions of forfeited jobs here at home. Still at $47 billion last year, crude oil imports were roughly equal to the next four largest trade deficit categories. Around the world, the war over energy rages on. Look only to Europe's compromised position toward Ukraine and, of course, oil-rich but unstable Iraq. We must position our own Nation to a secure energy future. Our bill's priority is to strengthen our Nation's energy foundation. This bill does responsibly invest in that effort, as well as in our nuclear security as well as our water infrastructure. But I must ask: At what cost does our bill do this? Our bill is among the first two to be considered. There are 10 bills that will follow, and, frankly, they were raided to pay for ours. This Republican budget will mean that additional funding for this bill--1 of 12 appropriation bills on which Congress must act--comes at the expense of other vital national needs that will be shortchanged as subsequent appropriation bills are brought forward; in total, 12 of them. For example, our bill funds incredible advanced scientific research. But it does so at the expense of the Health and Human Services bill that shorts support for our students who will be the next generation of scientists. Our bill provides for the Department of Energy labs, whose new technologies will power our future. But why is the National Institutes of Health shortchanged in the Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations bill? Its discoveries will save and improve millions of lives. In our bill, nuclear weapons funding will increase by $500 million. Meanwhile, in the Transportation, Housing bill, crumbling cities will lose even more resources, elderly housing will remain unfunded, and our poorest families will continue struggling to put food on the table. Nuclear nonproliferation and environmental cleanup efforts in our bill will make our world safer. But on America's streets, police and fire departments will remain understaffed, insufficiently trained, and underequipped because the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill is shorted. In our bill, there are no new starts for the Army Corps of Engineers infrastructure, whose $60 billion backlog of unfinished projects is astounding. But to fund the Corps in our bill, America's roads will be shortchanged and remain pothole-ridden, the rail lines clogged, with more bridges on the brink of collapse because the Transportation, Housing bill has been shortchanged too. In our bill, the Bureau of Reclamation will continue to help our 17 Western States cope with record drought, yet severe underfunding of the clean water and drinking water funds in the Department of Interior-EPA bill will further threaten the fresh water supply of thousands more communities across our country. No amount of duct tape can fix all the leaking pipes. This bill sacrifices the long-term strength of our Nation by raiding other bills that are essential appropriation responsibilities, but that is the game plan of the overall Republican budget that has been handed us. It is not a prescription for an American success story. The Appropriations Committee's discretionary programs, at only 6.8 percent of our Nation's total economy, or GDP, are too thin a reed on which to balance our Nation's accounts. The Ways and Means Committee must put its cards on the table too and open its vast jurisdiction to scrutiny. Mandatory programs must be put on the table. And then the preparation of America's budget will have an engine in which all pistons are firing and engaged. We want to produce an appropriation bill here tonight, but I find myself guilty in a way because I know what is being taken from those other subcommittees so vital to our Nation's future. Though this Energy and Water bill is respectable, it is only one oar in the water pushing our ship of state forward. We can't reach our destination without the other 11 oars in the water too. For that reason, I urge my colleagues, as we move forward, to consider a ``no'' vote on this measure in hopes that a message will be sent strongly. The American people deserve all hands on deck and all oars in the water. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to inquire of the Chair, how much time do we have remaining on this side, please?

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the very, very able gentleman from the State of California (Mr. Honda), a distinguished member of our subcommittee.

Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to yield 30 seconds to myself to just thank the gentlewoman very much for her comments and to say how very much I enjoyed visiting the Berkeley lab with her out in California and knowing the work that they are doing not just for California, but for the whole country. It has been really a pleasure to work with you and to support that lab and its activities.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. I also appreciate the Members bringing this to our attention, having visited more than one of these facilities and look forward to working with the chairman to support this very worthy activity.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. KAPTUR. I, as well as the chairman, appreciate the gentleman coming to the floor and pointing out some of the inadequacies of process here, but I wanted to just state for the record that a couple of the items that the gentleman targets, I think, would do damage to the country. For example, the accounts that deal with cleaning up the cold war legacy, that means that communities across our country that sacrificed in the name of the country would have to wait even longer for a resolution to the contamination that exists. It is astounding how much there is from coast-to-coast. When you start looking, you almost want to close the book because there is so much, and I think that the communities that have been dealing with these remediation problems over the years would not appreciate the gentleman's amendment this evening. In addition to that, I wanted to say something about ARPA-E, where we have our advanced energy research going on. You know, the United States is not energy secure. We are still too vulnerable here at home on many levels, and ARPA-E provides us with a real global advantage. I don't think we need to shave anything from ARPA-E because if I look at some of the competition that is coming at us from China, for example, it is even coming in very unfair ways, such as hacking into our intellectual property that any of our private companies hold. We view ARPA-E as essential to our future, really, with what we are doing within the global marketplace. So I think the gentleman is very well-intentioned in trying to have regular order. I wish that it all worked so perfectly, but I don't think that we should hurt communities across this country nor the long-term energy interests of the Nation, because I think that is what would be done if the gentleman's amendment were to pass. I just wanted to put that on the Record and rise in opposition, but I respect the gentleman for coming down here and for trying to perfect the way that we conduct the affairs of the Nation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman from Virginia's amendment. I wanted to point out--perhaps he doesn't have the full numbers--but the figure that we have, we had a request from the administration of $560 million, and we actually increased the administration's request by $45 million to a level of $605 million for fossil energy research, which is more than we spent in this fiscal year of 2015. We are spending $571 million this year, so I would say that the fossil energy accounts have been rather well provided for. I also want to say to the gentleman that you are taking the funds from the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account, and that account is not above last year. It is $266 million below last year. What is in the account, what remains there, is focused on American manufacturing--which is important in Virginia--and vehicle technology, which are really not partisan interests. My own view is that, if you were to take the amount of funds that you are proposing out of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account, you would decimate these programs and further erode manufacturing which has taken such big hits. Let me also mention that since 2003, our country has spent $2.3 trillion importing foreign petroleum. This shifts vast amounts of wealth abroad and squelches thousands upon thousands of jobs in our country in the energy sector. I agree with the gentleman that a diverse energy portfolio is necessary to eliminate our reliance on imported energy, and we need an ``all of the above'' strategy. Our bill provides that in terms of not just fossil energy, but renewable energies. We should be leading investment in these technologies across the board and expanding jobs in our country. Though I appreciate the gentleman's interest--and I know Virginia has coal deposits, so does Ohio--but I really feel that the bill that we have worked out on a bipartisan basis provides very, very well for fossil energy, certainly better than the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy accounts fared. I would oppose the amendment, and I would ask our colleagues to join us in doing the same. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. I appreciate the chairman's yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I first want to invite the gentleman from Alabama to Ohio to see part of the new energy sector in our country. It is absolutely incredible, and it does involve high-level research to produce new energy technologies. I support nuclear, and I support fossil-based research, but I also support coal and tidal energy and wind and biofuels and geothermal--all of them--because we need them. New investment in clean energy in our country in 2013 totaled $36.7 billion. The leading company in solar in our country and, frankly, globally is a U.S.-born company--born in Ohio--called First Solar. You mentioned nonproductivity. Their stock is sold on Wall Street. They benefited early on in that company's life by photovoltaic research beginning back in the 1970s and 1980s at the U.S. Department of Energy. It is really incredible to see the future being born, and I am hoping Alabama can take advantage of that kind of technology. What concerns me, and one of the reasons I am on my feet at this point, is that they have competition from China. The first and second companies in the world that are being subsidized by the Chinese Government are in tough competition with the U.S.-born company, and we can't ignore the fact that global venture capital and private equity in new investment in clean energy increased from $1.4 billion in 2004 to $4.4 billion in 2013. The question is: Where is that going to be invested--in our country or someplace else? So I would just say that we have made tremendous progress in an all- of-the-above strategy. Renewable sources now account for 23 percent of all electricity generation globally. That is amazing progress. We are learning how to work in conjunction with the Earth. Who would ever have guessed that ethanol would now consume 10 percent of what you put in your tank? People said you can't even get to 1 percent. Now they are looking to 15 percent. It is unbelievable what is happening in these fields. I appreciate the gentleman wanting to be responsible. I think we are being responsible in providing an all-of-the-above bill, including new energy technologies that will help our country in future generations so we no longer have to be dependent on imported energy, which I view as our chief strategic vulnerability. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. And Ohio.

Ms. KAPTUR. I just wanted to say Ohio is a major coal-producing State.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, Congress spent this past week trying to fast-track Trade Promotion Authority and the new Trans-Pacific Partnership proposal for trade agreements with several nations in the Pacific; but why rush such a significant piece of legislation that cedes Congress' constitutional authority to the executive branch? Meanwhile, Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe and President Obama are scheduled to meet on April 28 to further fast-track this agreement. Rushing this process is an easy tactic to try to silence a reasonable opposition, but, based on our country's history of making trade deals that drive up our trade deficit and outsource millions of U.S. jobs, the American people should be alarmed. I and many others are sounding that alarm. Japan is one of the most significant partners in this agreement, and it is the world's second largest currency manipulator and is one of the leading protectionist markets in the Pacific. They have much to gain from a weak trade agreement. Japan is the world's third largest automobile market, but 96 percent of that market belongs only to Japanese automobiles. Since 2000, we have been able to sell 183,000 cars there, but guess how many they sold here--16.3 million. That is 89,000 to 1. There is something wrong with trying to work a deal that rewards a country whose markets are closed. We need a new trade model that creates jobs in America again and that does not reward currency manipulators and protectionist markets.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, Trade Adjustment Assistance was designed as a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of America's workers, their last line of defense when they lose their jobs through no fault of their own thanks to NAFTA and other bad trade deals that outsourced their jobs to foreign countries. Many workers never qualified even when they were eligible. The American people need much more than just adjustment assistance for thousands more workers whose jobs will be outsourced by the Trans- Pacific Partnership. America needs trade deals, themselves, to be adjusted, so they, again, create jobs in America rather than suck them away to foreign shores. This hasn't happened for nearly four decades. Since 1976, our Nation has lost 47.5 million jobs due to lopsided trade agreements. Last year, our economy lost 16 percent of its growth due to the overhang of the growing trade deficit. Thousands of steel workers in Lorain, Ohio, have just been pink- slipped and laid off due to imported steel. With every lost U.S. job, our Nation's economy gets weakened. Our working families become less financially secure. Rising into the middle class becomes impossible. What we need and must learn is the history of bad trade deals. Congress can't repeat the mistakes of the past. Our Nation needs a new trade model that creates more jobs in America, instead of outsourcing our jobs to foreign shores.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the American people are being kept in the dark by the Obama administration regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership. So much secrecy forces us to ask an important question: Have any of our past free trade agreements really been net positive for our Nation and helped our workers? The answer is ``no.'' Whether you look at the NAFTA accord with Mexico and Canada, where we are in huge deficit, if you look at the Korean agreement, if you look at basic trade with nations like Japan, which remains a closed market, every single agreement is all negative. Since 1976, our country has lost 47.5 million jobs due to trade deficits resulting from free trade agreements. During that time, we have accumulated a trade deficit of more than $9.5 trillion. What a drag that is on GDP. These growing trade deficits that outsource our wealth and weaken our economy devastate communities. Carrying a massive trade deficit has hindered economic growth and has limited our economic recovery by nearly 16 percent just in this past year alone. More and more people are slipping away from the middle class as a result, with inequality at the highest levels since the 1920s. Millions of Americans are losing faith in the possibility of upward mobility. Let's ask ourselves: What have past trade deals brought Americans? Just since NAFTA, Americans have lost in the manufacturing sector 5 million jobs, and that is just since the early 1990s--one of every four. More than 57,000 manufacturing facilities have closed--57,000. Washing machines that used to be made in Newton, Iowa--Maytag--now are imported from Monterrey, Mexico. Hoppy bicycles that used to be made in Celina, Ohio, are now imported from Asia. Ohio knows well the cost of fast-track trade agreements that ship out good jobs and ``Made in the USA'' brands. Since NAFTA, our trade balance with Mexico and Canada has gone from a $5 billion annual surplus, creating jobs here in 1993, to a deficit of $177 billion today. That translates into three-quarters of a million more lost jobs--750,000 more lost jobs--just with Canada and Mexico. The quality of life for Americans has been declining under these agreements. Middle class America is shrinking as businesses have closed production and have moved overseas. Three out of every five displaced U.S. manufacturing workers have been forced to take a pay cut in order to secure any kind of job, and one out of three workers experiences a pay cut of more than 20 percent. These are among the luckiest workers, as frequently laid off workers over the age of 40 can't even find replacement work. This is not just a problem for America. Workers in other countries are caught too, as one worker described to me, ``like a lobster in a cage, crawling over one another just to survive,'' contributing to unspeakable poverty and waves of desperate immigration to the United States from countries south of our border and elsewhere. Clearly, NAFTA was a failure for America's workers. If we look at the Korean trade deal, which they said would be the salvation, it has worked exactly in reverse. We have already lost 75,000 more jobs to imports coming into our country from Korea. The exports going out have been just a trickle. In fact, our exports to Korea have gone down by 7.5 percent. The Korean agreement was hailed as a wonderful opportunity for the American economy, something we just could not pass up. Well, take a look at what has happened. We imported 1,288,546 vehicles from Korea in 2014 and only exported 34,186. There are 40 times more imports coming into our country than exports going out. The Korean free trade agreement has been a failure for American workers too. With these Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations continuing to advance, America should ask: Could it possibly be a good deal for American workers? We already have colossal trade deficits with some of the countries with which the negotiations are occurring--with Malaysia, with Vietnam, and, obviously, with Japan. The prospective TPP partners use protectionism and currency manipulation to gain unfair advantage, and, in some cases, they fail to regulate appalling labor conditions. These nations will not deliver on the promises made in support of TPP. History should teach us that we need a new trade model. America doesn't need more job-outsourcing trade deals. The executive branch and, specifically, the National Security Council better start paying attention to the harm it causes when it forgets its global strategies have created undue harm here in the homeland. The people in the United States are asking for a new trade model that creates jobs and economic growth in our country again--I might say robust economic growth--for which the American people have been waiting for almost three decades.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Jack Ford, who passed from our community on Saturday, March 21st. Jack Ford was one of a kind. He gave his life, decade after decade, to our entire community. We hold an abiding gratitude for his lifetime of dedicated and honorable service to us. I particularly appreciated his genius and wry sense of humor. He never missed a beat. Our entire region has benefited from his generous and focused life on behalf of others. Born in Springfield, Ohio to Edna and Stanton Ford, Jack Ford graduated from Ohio State University with a degree in social work. Already on a path to public service, he began his career with the Ohio Youth Commission. He came to Toledo in 1974 to earn his law degree from the University of Toledo. He then became director of the Lucas County Mental Health Board and consolidated county agencies into Substance Abuse Services Inc--known as SASI--which he directed. Jack began his service in elected life in 1987, when he successfully ran for Toledo City Council, eventually serving as Council President in 1993. Beginning in 1994, Jack served in the State legislature until he reached his term limit. Always, he understood the interconnections of our City to the world beyond it. His knowledge was hard-earned and unique. Jack Ford also made history. As an educator, health professional, and political activist, Mayor Ford became the very first African American Mayor elected in Toledo, in 2001. With his election as Mayor, he elevated our community to a more inclusive and progressive place. He made us proud. He was all business, and always demonstrated a hands-on, can-do attitude. He was a master of the City budget and directed his Administration to make long neglected improvements. Following his tenure as Mayor, Jack was elected to the Board of Toledo Public Schools and, most recently, returned to Toledo City Council to continue his service to our community. All the while, Jack imparted his knowledge to young people, encouraging and teaching at the university level. Even when not feeling well, he carried forward his duties in a soldierly and persevering manner, earning respect from all who knew him. Jack always had a twinkle in his eye and a knack for presenting the unvarnished truth to all whose paths he crossed. He had a very kind heart and generously shared his beloved family and adopted family like Reverend John McKissick and his lovely wife Mrs. Pearl ``Mother'' McKissick. What beautiful memories I hold of these self-giving, intelligent, productive citizens. Jack brought everyone together for a greater good to which he pledged his worthy efforts. He reserved a special place in his life for students and youth he mentored. He took particular pleasure in the classroom. Teaching at the University of Toledo and Bowling Green State University allowed him to inspire many leaders for the next generation. It is with a heavy heart that I extend my deepest sympathy to the Ford family: his wife Cynthia, his children, and his friends and associates. May the angels carry Jack Ford to a place of peace and rest. He has been truly a good, faithful, and honorable servant.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, last month, while many of us were working late to prevent the shutdown of our own Department of Homeland Security, a tragedy occurred in Moscow. Boris Nemtsov, famed leader of Russia's opposition, was fatally shot four times in the back near St. Basil's Cathedral and the Kremlin. He was 55 years old. That night the fateful image of his body lying dead, on a bridge, facing the Kremlin, sent shivers across our world. Shivers of sorrow. Shivers of anger. Shivers of cold remembrance of a place with no room for real liberty. No free speech. No tolerance for contrary opinions. No experience of what it means to live in an open society. Russia is a nation that spans eleven time zones. It holds enough nuclear arms to obliterate life on Earth. How sad that such a nation is still unsafe for a peaceful advocate of freedom and representative governance. Boris Nemtsov was killed just hours before a non-violent demonstration he was preparing to lead, protesting Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. What courage he showed in speaking for Ukraine, a young and energetic nation seeking peace and opportunity for its people. Ukraine is a sister to Russia and has not deserved the brutality that Russia has heaped upon her over the past year. During that short span, more than 6,000 people have died in the fight for an independent Ukraine. Mr. Nemtsov, a former deputy prime minister of Russia, a vice premier, fought every day for a more open society in his home country. He championed reform ever since the collapse of the old Soviet order twenty years ago. It was a valiant, if often lonely, struggle against a vast and oppressive totalitarian state. More and more, he must have felt the creeping shadow of his own mortality due to the danger in which he placed himself. Boris Nemtsov was assassinated by cowards lurking in the shadows as he crossed a bridge in front of the Kremlin. The murderers, driven to such a craven and despicable act, were too small and too afraid to let his voice rise. As I read the news of his tragic fate, I see the first threads of a history that will hold him up as a leader of unparalleled courage and unprecedented faith in his people. This is remarkable in the face of one of the most persistent tyrannies in the world. Boris Nemtsov's life is prophetic, like Alexander Solzhenitsyn and others who have suffered to move Russia out of its historical imprisonment of liberty. No part of our world has suffered more in the last century than Russia and the subjugated Soviet territories, as Dr. Timothy Snyder recounts in his extraordinary book ``Bloodlands.'' In the middle of Europe in the middle of the 20th century, the Nazi and Soviet regimes murdered some 14 million people . . . all victims of murderous policy rather than casualties of war. Yet not a single one of the 14 million murdered was a soldier on active duty. Most were women, children, and the aged; none were bearing weapons; many had been stripped of their possessions, including their clothes. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has called the situation a ``merciless devastation of civilian lives and infrastructure.'' His report points out that heavy weaponry and foreign fighters continue to pour in from Russia and that the conflict has ``dramatically deteriorated'' in the past two months. In 2010 Nemtsov founded the Coalition for Russia without Lawlessness and Corruption, a party notable not only for its ambitious name but also because it was refused registration as a party by the Kremlin. In recent years, as a leader of the Russian opposition, Nemtsov had written several highly credible reports exposing corruption at the highest levels of the Russian government. Our own Gettysburg Address, one of the most revered statements in American history, says, in part, ``that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'' This is a message I now commend to the people of Russia: let the sacrifice of Boris Nemtsov inspire your own devotion to the cause of freedom. Because of Boris Nemtsov, millions inside Russia can imagine liberty, a more democratic society, and a life better than the one now permitted to them. Ordinary citizens can make that life for themselves if they are only allowed real representative governance. Nemtsov strove to give every Russian a chance at that better life, even from inside the belly of a frozen whale. We honor his ideals and his sacrifice.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you very much, Congressman Tonko. Thank you for your leadership and bringing us to the floor. As Congresswoman DeLauro completes her remarks, I just want to thank her for leading all of us in this great quest to move toward trade agreements that create jobs in our country and trade balances rather than trade deficits. I thought that if I could contribute anything to the conversation when this administration or any administration says, Well, what do you want, I can tell you what we don't want. We don't want agreements like this. This was the agreement with Korea where they said that the United States would be getting the ability to ship all these cars over to Korea. What actually happened was the reverse. We get a trickle in there; they get a deluge in here. Our trade deficit with Korea has gone up 84 percent since the agreement was signed. We say to the administration: Give us a trade agreement that gives America not just a trade balance, which would mean we wouldn't lose any jobs, but a trade surplus, not a trade deficit, which costs us 5,000 jobs for every billion dollars of trade deficit. We want balanced agreements; we want agreements in surplus, not in deficit. Every American knows what I am talking about. They have experienced it in their own communities. The other thing we want is we, as a Congress, want the ability, when an agreement deals with so many different aspects, to treat trade like a treaty, not an agreement that is sent up here and we are told, You can't amend it, you can't read it actually, everything is in secret, the administration is coming up here this week, and everything is in secret, but we don't get to see the whole agreement. I guess we look through a keyhole, and we can see 10 words or something. That isn't the way this country should conduct business. My own feeling is: Until we fix what is wrong with past agreements like the Korea agreement, why should we sign any more? I have many stories I am going to put in the Record tonight, Congressman Tonko, about people in Ohio who have lost their jobs due to these backward trade agreements that ship our jobs out, not our products. I want to thank you for helping to be here tonight, long after hours--you don't have to be here, but you are--trying to say to the American people this is really important. We understand what the American people are saying to us; we are trying to fight for them here in Washington. How fortunate are the people of New York who have sent you here and that you are nobly carrying their cause against very, very powerful forces on the face of the globe that really don't care what happens to the people of the United States. They have a much narrower agenda. They really don't care about liberty when it comes right down to it. Thank you for holding to a higher standard and for trying to heal our country and to create jobs in America and opportunity in America and respect for liberty on the face of this Earth first because that is what America is supposed to be about. I don't want to take up the remaining time. I want to make sure you have opportunity to conclude.

Ms. KAPTUR. This is one of the most important elements of America's economic policy, and we are at a critical moment to change what was wrong in the past. We have an opportunity to fix these trade agreements and to reshape the way we handle trade with the world, beginning with those partners who share our value of liberty and then inviting in other nations of the world that want opportunity for their people and they want a chance for rising living standards, not to be turned into worse sweatshops with no environmental standards, with no worker standards, with no hope for a better way of life, just moving from one exploitative country to another exploitative country. I compliment you for standing up for the highest values of this Republic. I know the American people are going to win this fight because they have suffered far too long the job devastation from coast to coast. For the sake of workers in other places in the world, we are standing up for their opportunities and their rights as well. I am so privileged to join you this evening. Thank you for setting aside time for this Special Order tonight. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to join my colleagues in showing why Members of Congress must have an opportunity to weigh in on provisions included in the free trade deals currently under negotiation. Secrecy of Trade Negotiations Negotiations of the Trans Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership have been notoriously secretive. Despite the calls from hundreds of Members of Congress to the US Trade Representative to protest the needless secrecy of TPP, we continue to be denied basic access to the deal. And those few who have been granted access have been restricted from sharing any part of the agreement with their constituents or expert staff Tomorrow, the Administration will come to Capitol Hill to brief Members, but the conversation remains closed. Staffers without a security clearance are excluded and, again, disclosure of the terms of this deal to our constituents is prohibited under threat of federal prosecution. All this while foreign nations have the text of the provisions and know exactly what is included and what is excluded. The American people are being left in the dark with these negotiations. They are the very same people who have suffered the most as a result of past free trade deals negotiated in the same way: in secret. Personal Stories Tonight, I want to share a few personal stories of people from my district, people whose lives were uprooted and thrown into turmoil as a result of past free trade deals. These deals lacked sufficient worker and labor protections and ushered in a wave of offshoring of American jobs. Mr. Chuck Hamaide's Story I'll begin with Mr. Chuck Hamaide, a resident of Vermilion, Ohio. In December 2000, at 50 years old, Mr. Hamaide was laid off from his job at a software company in Cleveland. He found another job at a Columbus company, which had recently outsourced a first wave of production to Mexico. Three years later, it outsourced the remainder of its domestic production to China. Mr. Hamaide was lucky. He saw the writing on the wall and began the search for a new job before he was laid off. Many of his co-workers were not as lucky. Many who were late in their careers were laid off, losing their paychecks and their livelihoods. Many were in their fifties and faced the stigma of elder discrimination as they sought new employment. Many did not find jobs to replace the ones that were shipped overseas, where labor is cheap and conditions are appalling. This is the legacy of free trade deals in America. And there are many more stories like it. Gloria's Personal Story Gloria, a bright 17 year old from Huron, Ohio, wrote to tell me her family's story, a story that is not unique. Gloria's father worked for General Motor, then Delphi, and Kyklos Bearing International for 41 years. He clocked 12 hour shifts, seven days a week. Despite years of dedication, his pay was recently cut and the factory where he works is under threat of closure. His company may be able to offer him a replacement job--but it will be at another factory, 100 miles away from his home and his family. Whether or not Gloria's father takes the job, he and his family will suffer. Gloria shared with me her concern about her own future: she will soon go to college and fears she will not be able to find a job once she graduates. She worries that she will not be able to support herself and that she will have to live on welfare, despite ample motivation and capability on her part. This is the legacy of free trade deals in America. Middle America Hurt the Hardest by Free Trade These fears are the repercussions emanating throughout Middle America. A new generation of younger Americans, many of whom witnessed their parents being downsized and outsourced, is now entering the workforce with little hope of stability and opportunity. The American dream is looks more and more like a pipe dream to them. These free trade deals lead to outsourced jobs and fewer opportunities for young people like Gloria who are about to enter the labor market. And they contribute to lower wages for hardworking people like Gloria's father, who dedicated their lives to their jobs and the industries in which they worked. From the little we know from past trade deals and the shroud of secrecy being kept around the TPP and TTIP, we have to assume that these deals will be equally devastating for American workers like Chuck and future workers like Gloria. The fact that these deals are so veiled in secrecy is unsettling, but the real economic danger comes in the form of trade promotion authority. This so-called ``fast track'' authority would compel Congress to vote on these massive trade deals within just a few weeks of being allowed to read them, without any opportunity to push for important changes including improvements to environmental and labor standards. I can imagine reasons why trade supporters would want to fast track a secret trade deal, but none of them involve the benevolent treatment of American workers or increasing the market value of their labor. KORUS Anniversary This week the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement passed its third year in effect. I would like to remind everyone that it was sold to us on a promise of ``more exports, more jobs.'' In truth, we have seen exactly the opposite since the deal went into effect. U.S. exports to Korea have fallen and imports have surged. Our overall trade deficit with Korea is 84 percent higher than it was the year before the agreement was signed, an increase of 12.7 billion dollars. A large portion of that increase comes from manufacturing imports, especially passenger vehicles. Yes, auto exports to Korea are up an estimated 23,000 cars from a pre-KORUS number of around 15,000. The bad news is that the U.S. imported 450,000 more passenger cars over the same period. This works out to another 5.7 billion dollars or 36 percent alone for our auto trade deficit with Korea. That means more than lost profits for U.S. companies; it also means lost wages and lost jobs for thousands of U.S. workers. Let me also remind everyone that the Korean trade agreement is the model for the much larger Trans Pacific Partnership that remains shrouded in secrecy. Gloria put it perfectly in her letter: ``America has seemingly given up.'' Is this what we want our young people to think? That we no longer care, that we are no longer committed to offering them a better future? Lost jobs and downward pressure on wages are the legacy of trade in America, and we owe it to these young people to do better. We owe it to them to protect the American economy, to protect American jobs and to protect the middle class. We have a chance to show them that we haven't given up, and that we've learned from past mistakes, like NAFTA and KORUS. We can do this by putting an end to unfair free trade deals, and negotiating fair trade deals that work for everyone, including American workers. We owe it to the next generation to build a new legacy for American trade. There are mutual gains to be had if the free people of the world can work together, maintaining real labor and environmental standards and showing the world a better, and freer, way to live and work. We have seen glimpses of what this can look like, but for decades, when push comes to shove, our leaders have decided to balk and cave, letting false promises and voodoo economics drive the selling out of American workers time and again. We need to demand more of this administration and the massive global trade deals it strives to enact. We need real transparency and real standards or we need to say no more to terrible trade!