Michael Michaud

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the Congresswoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request. (Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the Congressman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request. (Mr. CRITZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the Congresswoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request. (Ms. PINGREE of Maine asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the Representative from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request. (Mr. JONES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. In response to the two previous speakers, I just want to highlight at this time the lunch bucket that I carried with me for over 29 years at Great Northern Paper Company in the mill. The Korea free trade agreement is bad for the workers who carry a lunch bucket similar to this. At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the Congresswoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request. (Ms. SUTTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MICHAUD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has fought harder and longer for fair trade than any Member I have served with.

Mr. MICHAUD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today as a former mill worker who punched a time clock for over 29 years at the Great Northern Paper Company in East Millinocket, Maine. What I've seen firsthand is the devastation that these free trade agreements can do to our communities. This agreement is the most economically significant since NAFTA, and its consequences for America's middle class will be enormous. Since NAFTA, we have lost more than 5 million manufacturing jobs. We've seen more than 50,000 factories close in the last 10 years alone. The Korea FTA will bring more of the same. It will cost us more manufacturing jobs, it will shut down more factories, and it will ship more jobs overseas, all at a time of 9 percent unemployment when the American middle class can least afford it. My colleagues have already highlighted the many reasons to oppose the Korea FTA, but I want to highlight two of those issues again. First, it does nothing to protect the U.S. in the face of Korea's currency manipulation. Second, this agreement isn't just a giveaway to Korea; it's also a giveaway to China. Korea has a history of manipulating its currency to boost its exports. Once in 1988 and twice in 1989, the U.S. Treasury Department officially labeled Korea a currency manipulator. Even though the Treasury stopped officially identifying currency manipulators, in their February and May report of 2011 they stated explicitly, ``Korea should adopt a greater degree of exchange rate flexibility and less intervention.'' The International Monetary Fund agrees. In August of this year, the IMF stated that the won was undervalued by 5 to 20 percent. The fact is, Korea manipulates its currency. Our own Treasury Department recognizes it. But the FTA does nothing to protect American businesses and workers from it. You only have to look at Mexico's 1994 devaluation of the peso to see how effectively an undervalued currency can wipe out an FTA's benefits. Our trade balance with Mexico has never been positive since. Without a provision to protect us from the won undervaluation, Korea's exports will continue to be cheaper than our own exports. This Korean advantage will wipe out the FTA's tariff benefits for American companies and cost American workers their jobs. Candidate Barack Obama recognized this threat, claiming that as President he would ``insist that our trade deals include prohibition against illegal subsidies and currency manipulation.'' But this FTA includes no such prohibition at all. And, second, this agreement is not just good for Korea; it's great for China too. Today, we're actually voting on an FTA that will be an outright boon for China's auto parts sector. The agreement's rules of origin require that only 35 percent of the car's content value come from Korea or the U.S. We have two FTAs with car-producing countries: NAFTA and the Australia FTA. In the Australia FTA, the content requirements are 50 percent. And in the NAFTA, the content requirements are 62.5 percent. Korea's car production in 2010 was almost equal to that of Canada's and Mexico's combined; yet the Korea FTA content requirements are much lower than NAFTA's. By allowing 65 percent of a car's content value to come from a third country, we're opening the door for that 65 percent to come from--guess who--China. As a result, these rules of origin will be devastating to the American auto parts industry. The U.S. auto supply chain is already facing challenges from China. According to the Commerce Department 2010 report titled, ``On the Road,'' China auto parts exports to the U.S. have increased 43 percent from 2004 to 2009, and they're expected to account for an increased share of U.S. automotive parts in the future. In fact, Commerce predicts that many auto parts companies will continue to move production to China in an effort to reduce costs and remain competitive. If this FTA passes, that's not a prediction; that's a guarantee. I've already mentioned the fact that we have lost more than 50,000 factories since 2001. Before voting today, I urge you to imagine how many more factories will close if we are to pass this agreement, and to think about the devastation that will be brought to those towns when that happens. I oppose it because it will devastate our manufacturing sector at a time when we need to rebuild it. I oppose it because this President promised hope and change, not more of the same. I oppose it because in my home town, unemployment is more than 28 percent. I oppose it because I want to create jobs in the United States, not South Korea, and definitely not in China. As a former mill worker from East Millinocket and on behalf of America's middle class, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Korea FTA agreement. I would like to insert into the Record a letter from the AFL-CIO in opposition to all three free trade agreements. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, Washington, DC, July 7, 2011. Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I write to urge you to oppose the proposed trade agreements with Colombia, Korea and Panama. Working people, in the U.S. and around the world, are bearing the brunt of decades of flawed trade policy. We need Congress and the White House to focus on creating the millions of good jobs at home that we so desperately need--not passing more flawed trade deals. These trade agreements, negotiated by the Bush Administration, incorporate too many of the disastrous policies of the past, rather than laying out a new and progressive vision for the future. Instead of using valuable time and effort advancing these flawed agreements, Congress should instead focus on effective job creation measures, including currency rebalancing and enforcing existing trade laws. We need to invest in a modern, functional infrastructure; in a high-tech, high-skilled workforce; and in clean renewable energy. It is time to update our trade model for the 21st century so that it strengthens labor rights protections for all workers, safeguards domestic laws and regulations, and promotes the export of U.S. goods rather than jobs.

Mr. MICHAUD. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you. At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request. (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request. (Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the Congresswoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. I now would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. MICHAUD. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on all sides?

Mr. MICHAUD. I have one more, plus I will be closing.

Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, is the chairman prepared to close?

Mr. MICHAUD. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. MICHAUD. On the House floor today, we are considering three trade agreements: the FTA with Korea, which manipulates its currency; the FTA with Colombia, the labor unionist murder capital of the world; and the FTA with Panama, which has one of the smallest populations in Latin America. At a time of 9 percent unemployment, why are we even considering these trade agreements? We should not be advancing the failed NAFTA- style trade policy when millions of Americans are still out of work. Instead, we should be considering legislation that will create jobs here at home. The American people were pretty clear in 2008 when they voted for hope and change, and they were even clearer in 2010 when they voted in a new generation of lawmakers to set Washington straight. Both times, Americans voted against the inside-the-beltway perspective and for Representatives and a President they thought would take the country in a different direction. Both times, despite these signals from the American people, the White House and Congress have ignored them, and Washington remains as beholden to Wall Street and as detached from Main Street as ever. In a poll done by NBC and the Wall Street Journal last year, the majority of Americans said that they thought the FTAs had been bad for the country. Given that they're so unpopular, why on Earth would the President send these agreements up to Congress right now? Well, you only have to look at the President's economic advisers to find out. Since elected, the President has surrounded himself with advisers from Wall Street banks, with CEOs from companies that don't pay taxes, and with staffers who pushed the NAFTA-style trade agreement under Clinton. Those advisers don't bring fresh perspectives to the White House. They bring more of the same corporate priorities that have caused the current and previous White House administrations to turn a blind eye while the big banks played roulette with our pensions and mortgages and then asked for a taxpayer bailout. The Panama free trade agreement is another example of Washington's corporate priorities. Panama's GDP is about $25 billion. That's about the same GDP as the city of Portland, Maine. The entire country has a population of 3.4 million. We have three times as many people in the United States on unemployment lists alone. And this agreement does nothing for those 14 million Americans without jobs. Panama simply isn't a significant market opportunity for U.S. exports, and this FTA won't do anything to reduce our 9 percent unemployment. But the big companies and the big banks want it, so President Obama is going to give in to the Washington elites once again. The working people and the middle class don't want these trade agreements--not with Panama, not with Korea, and not with Colombia. They want good-paying jobs that allow them to provide for their families. They want a government to pass laws to help get the economy going again. They don't want another NAFTA-style trade agreement, and they definitely don't want any more Wall Street-centric, beltway-based policies from the White House or Congress. They want Washington to wake up and they want the hope and change that they voted for. How much clearer could the American people be? They want policies written by citizens, not by chief executives. They want leaders to listen to town halls, not wealthy tycoons. They want change, not more of the same. I call on my colleagues who were sent here in 2010 with a mandate of change to work with me. Vote against these trade deals, which will cost us more than $7 billion. I call on my colleagues on the Democratic side to remember we have always been the party of the working people. We must vote against these NAFTA-style trade agreements. These agreements are unjust to the American people. I urge a ``no'' vote on all three of these trade agreements. I yield back the balance of my time.