Michael Michaud

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. MICHAUD. I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from California, Congressman Sherman, for 3 minutes.

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Representative Lynch. (Mr. LYNCH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I now would yield 3 minutes to a gentleman who is very outspoken about fair trade deals, the gentleman from Ohio, Congressman Kucinich.

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I now would yield to a gentleman who has been in this body for a number of years, who has seen firsthand the devastation of bad trade deals such as Peru, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for 3 minutes.

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to a gentleman who has been a strong advocate for fair trade deals, Mr. Wu of Oregon.

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MICHAUD. Okay. Well, I would now recognize an outstanding freshman Member in the 110th Congress, the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), who's done a great job on trade issues. I yield her 6 minutes.

Mr. MICHAUD. 24\1/2\ minutes. Do you have any additional speakers?

Mr. MICHAUD. So if I understand you correctly, for debate purposes this evening, the gentleman from New York has 2\1/4\ minutes. The gentleman, how much time does he have this evening?

Mr. MICHAUD. I reserve.

Mr. MICHAUD. I would like to recognize for 5 minutes a very outspoken, hardworking, freshman Member, Congressman Hare from Illinois.

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICHAUD. I thank the Speaker. I urge my colleagues to listen to their conscience and constituents by voting against this bill. I worked at Great Northern Paper Company for over 28 years. My father worked there for 43. My grandfather before him for 40. Three days after I got sworn in as a Member of Congress, the very mill I worked at decided to close its doors because of trade. Trade is not just a policy. It's a face, a name, a job, a family. The debate is, when will we change the course of trade policy so it can benefit the American economy, the American workers, the American families? When will we finally change our direction on trade and adopt a policy that makes sense for America? A ``no'' vote on Peru means we want a new direction in trade. A ``no'' vote means we are sick of watching our jobs go overseas. A ``no'' vote means we reject imports made by child and slave labor. Supporters of this trade agreement claim that strong labor and environmental protections are included. Then why does labor not support this bill? Why do the environmental groups not support this bill? And why does the President of the United States Chamber of Commerce support this bill? He made it very clear that the labor provisions are unenforceable. Those are his words. This agreement is still based upon the same flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model. The proponents like to say it's not. But if you look at the investment chapter, the core investment chapter language, there are very little changes in that chapter in the core investment. Now is the time for Congress to take a step back and consider what policies on trade is the best option, not the quickest one or the easiest one or the most politically expedient one. In 2006, the American electorate voted overwhelmingly for Congress to move in a new direction. This is a golden opportunity to create a new policy, one that will help our workers achieve their highest potential, one that will protect our environment, one that will increase the standards of living for all countries involved. Earlier this year, the Peruvian labor leaders had sent a letter to the Democratic leadership, and it gets to the point that Congressman Kucinich made earlier, urging Congress to reject this bad trade deal. They said if we have to accept it, make one change for us, and that has to do with privatization of Social Security. I would like to quote from that letter: ``By rejecting the Peru FTA, the United States Congress and the Democratic Party in particular can show the world that they can advocate in not only words but deeds.'' We have failed when it deals with the issue of globalization that was talked about earlier. We have failed to put on the President's desk the currency manipulation legislation. We have failed to put on the President's desk the value-added tax that we heard earlier this evening. We have failed to put on the President's desk legislation that will eliminate the tax haven. We have not made the USTR enforce these labor agreements. The American people were not fooled about NAFTA. We heard a lot of the discussions during the NAFTA debate this evening about Peru. Over 3 million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA. Illegal immigration has increased partly because of NAFTA. The American people will not be fooled about this trade deal. They will understand over time what this trade deal will mean to America. It's important for this Democratic Congress to start looking at trade in a different light, to make sure that we have a trade policy that is fair, not only in words but in actions. And that's why labor does not support this. That's why a lot of the environmental groups do not support this. But that is why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports this trade deal, because it's good for the large multinational corporations. Right now, with this Democratic Congress, we have a chance to embrace globalization and make it work, to make it work for America, not against America. As you heard earlier this evening from several of my colleagues who are opposed to this trade deal, it's about human faces. These individuals are just not numbers; they're human beings. And we, as a Congress, particularly a Democratic Congress, have to stand up for the individuals who cannot stand up for themselves. This is a bad trade deal for America, and it is a bad trade deal for this Congress. So, I implore my colleagues to vote against this trade deal tomorrow. I encourage you to continue to try to work with the Ways and Means Committee so we can come up with a new trade model that will actually work for America.

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlelady from California 5 minutes, I'll take 20 seconds to make very clear, there's not one labor organization that has sent a letter out saying that they support this trade deal. They don't support this trade deal, and to cherry-pick some of the language in the letter that they've sent I think is not correct. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I am asking Members who are committed to fair trade to vote against the Peru Free Trade Agreement. I can think of a million reasons to oppose this agreement. Let's start with over 3 million jobs lost because of NAFTA. Workers in my State have lost their jobs due to trade. They don't want trade adjustment assistance. They want their jobs. The bill's supporters claim that enhanced environmental standards in this FTA will preserve our natural resources. So where is the strong support from the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth? Supposedly the new labor provisions will improve conditions for workers in Peru and create jobs for workers here at home. So where is the support from labor? The two largest Peruvian labor unions are asking us to oppose this trade deal because it will hurt their workers. If this is, in fact, a new direction on trade, don't you think we'd hear from the support from these groups? It is time for a trade policy that benefits workers and creates jobs, not policy that encourages companies to take their investment elsewhere. Yet we are not listening. By passing this bill, we are continuing the same disastrous results that came under NAFTA and CAFTA. I didn't come to Washington so that I could ignore the needs of my constituents back home. I came to Washington to give a voice to those who need it. So let's start listening to the voices of the people back in our districts and take a new direction on trade, to start creating a new trade regime that will benefit all of us. I ask Members to oppose the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Speaking about trade adjustment assistance that passed this body last week, before it left this body the President came out and said he was going to veto trade adjustment assistance. Is that working in a bipartisan manner? No, it is not. I encourage Members to oppose the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Peru free trade agreement. I can't figure out why Congress is taking up this agreement now, especially when the Bush administration has had such a bad track record of enforcing any of our trade agreements. President Bush has given little or nothing to our workers these last few years other than a pink slip. So why give them another vehicle for job losses? Last week, the House passed a trade adjustment assistance overhaul bill. This legislation would provide our workers much-needed relief, but we wouldn't need more trade adjustment assistance legislation if we had better trade agreements. Even before the TAA bill passed the House, we heard that the President would veto it. So what would the House Democrats be doing by taking up the Peru free trade agreement without a TAA bill? And just last week we heard from the House leadership that there will be no China currency manipulation bill this year either. So let's review what we are getting out of our new trade deal: no additional relief for our workers, no China currency manipulation bill, no value added tax bill, no enforcement of existing trade policy. This is what we do get. We get another NAFTA-style trade deal. What do workers get? The same old direction on trade. The biggest supporter of the agreement is big multinational corporations. As a matter of fact, the President will be meeting with them tomorrow to get them to lobby for the passage of the Peru trade deal. It's the large multinational companies who seek to profit off the backs of working men and women in our country. The Bush administration claims that the agreement will improve labor standards in Peru, and in the very next breath, Tom Donohue, who's president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, states that he is ``encouraged by assurances that the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance with ILO Conventions.'' These multinational companies like Peru, they love these free trade agreements because it's not enforceable. While some may think that there has been progress made on the environment and labor provisions by the Peru FTA, all you need to do is look at who's supporting these trade deals. Not one union supports this trade deal, not one union, environmental, consumer, small business, faith, family farm group supports the modified Bush Peru NAFTA-style trade deal. Even the leaders of major Peruvian labor organizations oppose this agreement. They urge Congress to vote ``no,'' claiming that it will weaken labor standards, encourage illegal immigration to the United States, and increase rates of drug trafficking as well. By voting ``no'' to the Peru FTA, you're asking for a new direction on trade. I ask my colleagues to join me and vote ``no'' on the Peru free trade deal. It's a bad deal for America. It's a bad deal for Peru. It's the same old, same old NAFTA-style trade deal that we're dealing with.

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. I thank Madam Speaker. This weekend, Senator John Edwards announced his opposition to the Peru Trade Agreement. The reason? As his statement says, ``All of these agreements replicate the terrible features of NAFTA.'' Senator Edwards is right. It is more of the same old, same old. A leading Presidential candidate is saying it. The American people are sick of it. And so why is Congress pushing for it? Why would we push for a steady stream of lost jobs that gives incentives to multinational corporations to move overseas? Why would we agree to an agreement that would displace peasant farmers who would be forced to migrate to the United States? The American public aren't fooled. Campaign finance reform hasn't stopped the incredible financial influence of multinational corporations. These corporations are weighing in with the candidates, even Citibank. Take, for example, the provisions hidden in the Peru FTA. As Senator Edwards points out, ``Buried deep in the 800-page text of the Peru FTA are ambiguous provisions that could allow U.S. banks to demand compensation if Peru reverses its disastrous social security privatization.'' The Peru FTA contains provisions that could allow Citibank to demand compensation in FTA foreign investor protection tribunals from the Peruvian Government if Peru seeks to reverse its failed social security privatization. The Peruvian archbishop and both labor federation presidents asked the Ways and Means leaders to fix this problem. And it hasn't been fixed. The House floor will be voting on this in a couple of weeks. As a Democratic Party, we have stood united against privatization of Social Security. We have not backed down. That is why it shocks me to hear that Senator Obama supports the Peru FTA. Yes, Senator Obama does support the Peru FTA. Senator Edwards has it right. It is time to stick up for the American workers. It is time to reject the same NAFTA model that has devastated our industry. It is time to listen to the broad list of groups who do not support the Peru FTA. Not one union, environmental, consumer, small business, faith, family farm group supports the modified Bush Peru NAFTA Expansion FTA. So why would any Presidential candidate? It is important to hear what the candidates are saying about protecting our jobs and fighting for fair trade deals. It is important that we stick together in this fight to keep our jobs here at home. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Peru FTA.

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about a human tragedy that affects the lives of millions of innocent individuals. The barbarism in the Darfur region of Sudan continues despite international calls for a cessation of violence. Lives continue to be lost and hope for peace remains distant. On July 4 of 2004, the 109th Congress declared that genocide was occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan. Over 3 years later, the violence continues. Hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives. An estimated 2.2 million people have been forced from their homes. Today the House will consider three resolutions related to Darfur. It is my hope that this body will continue to focus on this humanitarian crisis until the genocide comes to an end. H. Res. 573 recognizes and commends the efforts of the United States public and advocacy groups to raise awareness about and help end the worsening humanitarian crisis and genocide in Darfur. The responsibility to help end this humanitarian crisis is part of the values that make us American. It is in the best spirit of our country, and it is part of the leadership that we should bring to the world. We must continue to work together as one to bring this conflict to an end. The second resolution, H. Res. 756, condemns rape and sexual violence against women and girls in Darfur, Sudan, eastern Chad and the Central African Republic. The violence and inhuman experiences perpetrated upon the people of Darfur and the surrounding region have been particularly terrible for women. This resolution urges the President to take an active role in providing victims of sexual abuse with medical and legal support. It also calls on fellow members of the United Nations to sanction the Sudan for any non-compliance to bring known perpetrators to justice. We cannot be silent while innocent women and girls suffer such cruelty. The final resolution, H. Res. 740, condemns the attacks made on African Union Peacekeepers in the Darfurian village of Haskanita on September 29, 2007. This violent act took the lives of 10 peacekeepers--7 Nigerians and 3 other soldiers from Mali, Senegal, and Botswana. These attacks are unacceptable and detrimental to the peace effort but should not deter the conviction of the African Union or the international community to bring peace and security to the region. The displacement of millions of people as well as the rape and murder of hundreds of thousands cannot be tolerated by the United States or any country that holds freedom and democracy as sacred values. The ongoing events in Darfur constitute the worst ongoing humanitarian disaster in the world. We must do everything we can to bring it to an end.